Talk:Toothpaste tube theory
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Toothpaste tube theory appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 May 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Suggesting improvements
editI think this article is probably notable but it is propped up by some slightly weak sourcing. The link to a wiki page would be better replaced by a link to the case/book (I'm not a lawyer, so it's not clear to me which it is) which it refers to in the first place. A better source for the Byrnes case is at Rominger Legal, or better yet the ruling direct.
There's an interesting other view on toothpaste theory here and a mention of it in the community here. How it relates to derivatives and there are other books that mention it: " Google book search has a good link to a paragraph in a book.
With these sources this would be a much fuller, and better sourced, article, good luck. Bigger digger (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The image
editThe toothpaste image does not have borders or a caption, so it kind of looks like it's being squeezed all over the article :D EmperorFishFinger (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
is that a joke?
editToothpaste tube theory? Really? A serious theory, like in Einstein's theory of time and space relativity? Or is this entire Wikipedia article a joke? 93.219.183.49 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I’m no expert, but it seems ridiculously facile to me - cause leads to effect, end of? Or am I missing something? 2A00:23C6:B80F:9501:8177:A98F:C300:1BA5 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)