Talk:exponential growth

Denying the usage of a term by stating that it is incorrect is from a linguistic point of view not really relevant. It is like saying that discrimination is a good thing because it means that you have the ability to see differences. GerardM 11:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–June 2020
Sounds SOP. PUC – 10:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Set phrase, widely used and understood. Far more common than exponential expansion, exponential heightening etc. John Cross (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * has an entry for exponential growth, increase, etc.. PUC – 11:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See also: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/exponential_growth John Cross (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. - TheDaveRoss  12:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and improve/generalise the definition at exponential. Yes, perhaps exponential growth is a common example, but I see no real difference between this and exponential rise, exponential increase, exponential improvement or anything else. Mihia (talk)
 * At any rate, I have amended the (to me) backward-seeming definition at exponential, that defined the word in terms of two admittedly common but essentially arbitrary examples of usage, so that that definition is no longer dependent on the separate existence of exponential growth or exponential decay. Mihia (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I would tend to keep this. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as set phrase and per the non-binding WT:LEMMING . Imetsia (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider "the number of coronavirus cases has been growing exponentially" and "the growth in the number of coronavirus cases has been exponential" and "there has been exponential growth in the number of coronavirus cases". Where exactly does it change from independent words expressing a concept to a single lexical unit? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per Mihia and Chuck. Equinox ◑ 19:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per John Cross. bd2412 T 04:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete...though I don't feel strongly about it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Abstain. In some WT:LEMMINGs: . The sum-of-parts argument has a plausibility. There is also exponential function; features more dictionaries, including M-W. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unfortunately. It's in the OED. Lemmings. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Tooironic: Lemmings is not a policy and is non-binding; it failed a vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So what if the lemmings principle failed a vote, it's still a valid consideration for Wiktionary not to lag in coverage compared to other dictionaries. bd2412 T 19:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Tooironic said "Unfortunately"; my point is that there is no CFI-driven and no consensus-driven compulsion for him to vote "keep". And if we ever pass lemmings, it will probably be as an option, a card that editors can play on a discretionary basis.
 * More on the substance of this RFD: exponential growth is growth characterized by exponential function; there would then be linear growth (characterized by linear function), quadratic growth, polynomial growth, etc. These terms do find some use, while exponential growth is the frequency leader, . linear growth is not in lemmings: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Kept: no consensus for deletion. PUC – 10:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)