Talk:Ultraviolet divergence

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unify[edit]

I noticed today that there are separate articles for ultraviolet divergence and UV completion. Since these are both aspects of the limiting process, and the Yang–Mills theory article mentions the term ultraviolet limit explicitly, I suggest that UV completion be merged with this article, and renamed to ultraviolet limit. 70.250.199.40 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that there is an article about UV fixed point already. 70.250.199.40 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although related, these topics are actually opposites. Ultraviolet divergence is about how a particular theory fails at high frequencies; while UV completion is about how any theory (not just this one) might be fixed so that it can handle higher frequencies. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagline Clarifications[edit]

I'm pretty sure "integral" is mis-linked at in the tagline, and that it should be path integral instead. I'm not a physicist, but that seems clearer to me. ◗●◖ falkreon (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]