Talk:Snap

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Snap page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Skip to table of contents

(High-order derivative)

Also a dirivative of position. I think the 5th.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by ARiina (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 April 2006

A full acct:

0. Position

Velocity
Acceleration
Jerk (physics)
Jounce a.k.a. snap

Adding to the accompanying Dab.
--Jerzy•t 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one web page that every article on Wikipedia references says itself the names "snap", "crackle" and "pop" are made up. This is that page http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/jerk.html. I am a physicist and have never seen this term used in any text. I am removing from the list. To re-add please first provide a reference to a classic physics text that uses the term.

Phancy Physicist (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sections

I do not believe that all the topics covered in the computing aspect fit to science and engineering -- specifically a search engine would actually fit closer to a product than a science/engineering concept and some people might argue whether a specific protocol is a product or an engineering issue. (ie that protocols in general are computer science/engineering but that a specific protocol might be considered a product to solve a particular system issue.) As a result I think is appropriate to keep the IT and Science aspects more separate. Nashikawa 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many very small sections worsen reaidng and searching, and generally discouraged in wikipedia..
`'mikka (t) 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following contrib was made with no indentation, and is indented (to a normally unjustified depth!) to avoid the confusion it would impose on any further contributions if left where i found it. Most likely it responds to the contribution of "mikka", and agrees that additional sections would be counterproductive, but there's really no telling!

I agree completly with you my friend!!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.154.233 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2006

(Snap of the fingers)

What about snapping your fingers. Is there no insanely in-depth article on the mechanics of the snap? As far as I know, this is the origin of the word, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.29 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2006

Snap-on

Why was Snap-on , the tool manufacturer removed?
It has an article in Wikipedia...why not reference it here?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.95.243 (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2007

It does not seem that a reader searching for Snap-on is likely to make the mistake of looking for Snap instead. This page is to help resolve very frequent confusions or dual uses of the same word. The word Snap-on is unique and distinctive and is unlikely to have the problem of being mixed up with some other snap-on with different meaning, or being mixed up with snap itself.
EdJohnston 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not called "Snap".
`'Míkka 16:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

🙏🏿 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.34.119 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]