"Polynomial" means simply "many names." The names refer to terms of a polynomial function in the general form ax^2 + bx+ c, which is put at zero in order to discriminate the variables from the coefficients in a polynomial equation. The assertion begs the question (petitio principii) "What is a function, and how does it differ from an equation?"

Notice that the general formula analyzes "any" number or value (x) in terms of three constant numbers {a, b, c}. Solutions will be limited to {0, 0} where BOTH the argument of the equation AND the value of the function are zero plotted on coordinate axes, so "polynomial" expressions are also limited to problems of quadrature, in two dimensions, and no more of the "many" terms indicated by the name will admit solutions to cubic or higher powers in both perpendicular and transverse axes (or for conic equation). The area of a circle therefore does not admit the intersections of cones into conic sections or, by intension, the hyperbola limiting the {0,0} origins as they branch, unlike the asymptopes at infinity where they begin-- or the ellipse extending {ab} major and minor axes coefficiently on the real plane of numbers in any of the 4 = 2^2 quadrants of coordinate axes.

https://plus.google.com/108657187448883149300/posts/gNiVzN9Ahb6A "polynomial calculator" is therefore absurd; there is nothing to calculate. Instead, the equivalence 16 = 4^2 = 2^4 is supposed to allow any number, not "many" (in terms of "poly") to mean any "multiple" of some "measure" (See Augustus De Morgan's explanation of the Fifth Book of Euclid". You get these strings contrived of all manner of exponential powers ("n", say, in number) for Academics who believe passionately that "Mathematics begins with Calculus." And anybody who doesn't believe you must be stupid.

https://plus.google.com/108657187448883149300/posts/JrhC51o8mJrFunny, how recently this graphic has been visible in this post. I believe it is describing a tangent to a curve in order to claim a relation between the number of curves and the value of a given power. Problem: it plots the function, which has no basis for the exponent of x^n which justify (n - 1 = m) terms. Then you take the "rational" nature of the tangent as you ignore the difference between its perpendicular at the x-axis and the radius which assigns it scale of magnitude--so you can force students into believing this kind of nonsense about "terms" follows from an equally absurd interpretation of prime numbers and the ordinal and cardinal differences in serial or summation expressions that they either learned or prepared to learn in calculus.