Talk:frequency

RfD discussion.

1st sense only: Trying to write example sentences, I could not devise an example that didn't fix better under the second definition. If kept, please provide such an example, in the entry, for TOTW. --Connel MacKenzie 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it. It seems to define the property of something that occurs frequently, but without any reference to the actual rate of occurence. What about something like "The frequency of the seasons seems to define our lives". SemperBlotto 09:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how that doesn't fit as an additional example sentence for the second definition, though. But I'm not ready to get on my "too much splitting" soapbox at this point in time. I'm not sure we should be making that level of distinction in the definitions. If both types of examples are provided, I don't see the value of providing separate definition lines also. --Connel MacKenzie 06:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what is missing is "the property of reccuring frequently". E.g. "a question that comes up with some frequency", or "The frequency of the visits was what annoyed him". Kappa 06:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Kappa, the quality of being frequent, as opposed to infrequent. However, that doesn't seem to be what the first sense is saying. I'll add another sense at the bottom, and insert Kappa's examples. I would submit that the third Physics sense is also redundant with the first two (except for the specificity of the terms.) --Jeffqyzt 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That definition works better. The first definition is actually a description of periodicity, not of frequency. --EncycloPetey 01:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This page was just entirely shady. What I want to know is what a derived magnitude is and why that's a physics-only phenomenon. DAVilla 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bus service was slow in front of the lab? It's not physics-only, it's presumably a result of the fact that the definition is overly technical and pulled from a physics text. In any case magnitude is not the best choice of word here. --EncycloPetey 22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Token/Type frequency

Are these not idiomatic enough? JMGN (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)