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

Statistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. 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.

Thanks, Deepmath. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Can something be added for cases which are not (2D) spheres? Finite regions in 1, 2 and 3D space for example. otherwise title is very misleading. Melcombe ( talk) 15:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It would be nice, but there is a problem: it would be much too technical, I'm afraid. If you'll look at my lectures (cited in Further reading) you'll see that even in a graduate course I did not find a possibility to consider "finite regions in 1, 2 and 3D space". Of course, they are the main source of pride for the authors. However, it seems to me that Wikipedia can only inform the reader that such a theory is available, and recommend references. On the other hand, if you (or anyone) will succeed in adding something like that to the article, I'll be glad. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I was about to ask about this within a spherical domain vs. topological surface - seems like what you're discussing? ~E: 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Still, to this end you'd better read a source. -- Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 07:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply