Manifold is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
other old discussions:
Talk:manifold/old,
Talk:manifold/rewrite/freezer.
To start, I believe the four paragraphs of Motivational should be elsewhere. I propose the following:
I will begin drafting these changes. If there are objections or better suggestions, let's discuss here. Horsesizedduck ( talk) 22:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll leave a link to what (I think) was a better version of this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Manifold&oldid=111890033 This might be useful for comparison. Horsesizedduck ( talk) 11:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The assertion is made that the origin and positive x-axis are special under polar coordinates.
This is bizarre and needs explanation or correction (perhaps via deletion). Is the word "minus" being used in some unclear fashion?
2601:1C1:C100:F420:1CAC:3F44:5927:BCE ( talk) 02:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Just another drive by.
In the section "Manifold with boundary", there is an (as i think) misleading link: It reads "(See also Boundary (topology))." In that Article, the set-theoretic topology notion of "boundary" is explained, i.e. for a subset S of a topological space X, the set-theoretic boundary of S is the intersection of the closure of S and the closure of X\S. This is totally misleading here, at most we could say "(Do not confuse with Boundary (topology))." Any comments? Thanks in advance. -- Himbeerbläuling ( talk) 12:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead picture of the projective plane seems uniquely bad to me. The self-intersections in the picture give the wrong impression- the thing in the picture, interpreted at a glance, is not a manifold. Reading the caption we see that OK, yes, it really is a manifold, but it happens to be one for which no picture in R3 can be quite accurate. So why is this the lead-off example? The concept of "manifold" is not intuitively complicated, so we don't need a picture that makes it seem wild.
I think any of the pictures currently in Surface (topology) could work. Maybe there are others that would be better. Staecker ( talk) 18:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@ David Eppstein, D.Lazard, and Horsesizedduck: I propose merging Topological manifold into Manifold. These two articles appear to be about exactly the same mathematical concept. Mathwriter2718 ( talk) 18:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Manifold is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
other old discussions:
Talk:manifold/old,
Talk:manifold/rewrite/freezer.
To start, I believe the four paragraphs of Motivational should be elsewhere. I propose the following:
I will begin drafting these changes. If there are objections or better suggestions, let's discuss here. Horsesizedduck ( talk) 22:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll leave a link to what (I think) was a better version of this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Manifold&oldid=111890033 This might be useful for comparison. Horsesizedduck ( talk) 11:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The assertion is made that the origin and positive x-axis are special under polar coordinates.
This is bizarre and needs explanation or correction (perhaps via deletion). Is the word "minus" being used in some unclear fashion?
2601:1C1:C100:F420:1CAC:3F44:5927:BCE ( talk) 02:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Just another drive by.
In the section "Manifold with boundary", there is an (as i think) misleading link: It reads "(See also Boundary (topology))." In that Article, the set-theoretic topology notion of "boundary" is explained, i.e. for a subset S of a topological space X, the set-theoretic boundary of S is the intersection of the closure of S and the closure of X\S. This is totally misleading here, at most we could say "(Do not confuse with Boundary (topology))." Any comments? Thanks in advance. -- Himbeerbläuling ( talk) 12:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead picture of the projective plane seems uniquely bad to me. The self-intersections in the picture give the wrong impression- the thing in the picture, interpreted at a glance, is not a manifold. Reading the caption we see that OK, yes, it really is a manifold, but it happens to be one for which no picture in R3 can be quite accurate. So why is this the lead-off example? The concept of "manifold" is not intuitively complicated, so we don't need a picture that makes it seem wild.
I think any of the pictures currently in Surface (topology) could work. Maybe there are others that would be better. Staecker ( talk) 18:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@ David Eppstein, D.Lazard, and Horsesizedduck: I propose merging Topological manifold into Manifold. These two articles appear to be about exactly the same mathematical concept. Mathwriter2718 ( talk) 18:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)