This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Low‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

maybe this should be merged into (and redirect to) Green's function#Green's function for the Laplacian. i s'pose the green's function article needs some work. for instance, the green's function listed for the laplacian is valid only for 3D (whereas the recent addition to this article gives it for any dimension for unbounded domains). Lunch 22:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It should at least mention the Green's function; (as far as I can tell, it's simply the Green's function for a specific equation, right? If not, the article should make clear the difference.) -- Starwed 01:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That's the other thing. The Newtonian potential is defined as the convolution of the fundamental solution with the right hand side of Poisson's equation. It is very different from the Green's function itself. HowiAuckland ( talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Even though it is about a Green's function, Newtonian potential deserves a separate entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.186.44 ( talk) 03:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Not to mention that the Newtonian potential refers to the "Green's function" in arbitrary dimensions. Also, one usually considers Green's functions of a boundary value problem, in which the Green's function also satisfies the given boundary condition. It is strange (to me, at any rate) that the target article seems to be about the fundamental solution rather than a Green's function. This must be a math-versus-physics thing. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I think you're absolutely correct. How should we fix this? Is it possible to change the title? HowiAuckland ( talk) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The second sentence is unclear: "In its general nature, it is a singular integral operator, defined by convolution with a function having a mathematical singularity at the origin, the Newtonian kernel G." Nickvence ( talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Please confirm and change the link if correct that the Newtonian Potential Operator is the negative inverse of the Vector Laplacian 150.243.67.58 ( talk) 02:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Nathan reply

"The Newtonian potential w of ƒ is a solution of the Poisson equation ${\displaystyle \Delta w=f,\,}$" --- really? This is true for the gravitational potential in physics, that differs in the sign from the Newtonian potential in mathematics (the latter is physically the electrostatic potential for repelling particles). When f is positive, Δw is negative, isn't it? Indeed, w has a maximum, not minimum, somewhere. -- Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC) reply