Talk:Geometry: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Aleksander Stos No edit summary |
imported>Aleksander Stos (checklist) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{checklist | |||
| abc = Geometry | |||
| cat1 = Mathematics | |||
| cat2 = | |||
| cat3 = | |||
| cat_check = n | |||
| status = 3 | |||
| underlinked = y | |||
| cleanup = y | |||
| by = --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 15:55, 24 March 2007 (CDT) | |||
}} | |||
Geometry is not only about "study of the relationships between points, lines, surfaces, solids and other higher dimensional objects" since Descarte. By the 19 century - after Gauss, Riemann, Lubachevsky, and Klien - this definition would be completely anachronistic. It even more anachronistic today.--[[User:David Lehavi|dlehavi]] 21:18, 3 March 2007 (CST) | Geometry is not only about "study of the relationships between points, lines, surfaces, solids and other higher dimensional objects" since Descarte. By the 19 century - after Gauss, Riemann, Lubachevsky, and Klien - this definition would be completely anachronistic. It even more anachronistic today.--[[User:David Lehavi|dlehavi]] 21:18, 3 March 2007 (CST) | ||
: I tried to do something. Feel free to improve! --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (CST) | : I tried to do something. Feel free to improve! --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (CST) | ||
:: I don't feel that I have a good enough perspective to write this entry. Indeed if someone would ask me what geometry is the best I can do is tell them about Klein's Erlanger Programm, and describe more developments with this phylosophy in mind. Maybe thats the best that can be done...--[[User:David Lehavi|dlehavi]] 19:22, 7 March 2007 (CST) | :: I don't feel that I have a good enough perspective to write this entry. Indeed if someone would ask me what geometry is the best I can do is tell them about Klein's Erlanger Programm, and describe more developments with this phylosophy in mind. Maybe thats the best that can be done...--[[User:David Lehavi|dlehavi]] 19:22, 7 March 2007 (CST) | ||
:::I don't have a good perspective neither... So I only attributed the 'old-fashioned' definition to the common parlance and added a technical meaning. I was just asking to overview it to ensure that the stub is more or less correct. As far as I am aware, now it is not that different from other encyclopedic formulations (to the extend our stub covers the subject, i.e. the very first definition). Of course it must be developed and to include the Erlangen Program seems not a bad idea . --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 09:32, 8 March 2007 (CST) | :::I don't have a good perspective neither... So I only attributed the 'old-fashioned' definition to the common parlance and added a technical meaning. I was just asking to overview it to ensure that the stub is more or less correct. As far as I am aware, now it is not that different from other encyclopedic formulations (to the extend our stub covers the subject, i.e. the very first definition). Of course it must be developed and to include the Erlangen Program seems not a bad idea . --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 09:32, 8 March 2007 (CST) |
Revision as of 14:55, 24 March 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Mathematics Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Stub: no more than a few sentences |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | --AlekStos 15:55, 24 March 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Geometry is not only about "study of the relationships between points, lines, surfaces, solids and other higher dimensional objects" since Descarte. By the 19 century - after Gauss, Riemann, Lubachevsky, and Klien - this definition would be completely anachronistic. It even more anachronistic today.--dlehavi 21:18, 3 March 2007 (CST)
- I tried to do something. Feel free to improve! --AlekStos 11:17, 7 March 2007 (CST)
- I don't feel that I have a good enough perspective to write this entry. Indeed if someone would ask me what geometry is the best I can do is tell them about Klein's Erlanger Programm, and describe more developments with this phylosophy in mind. Maybe thats the best that can be done...--dlehavi 19:22, 7 March 2007 (CST)
- I don't have a good perspective neither... So I only attributed the 'old-fashioned' definition to the common parlance and added a technical meaning. I was just asking to overview it to ensure that the stub is more or less correct. As far as I am aware, now it is not that different from other encyclopedic formulations (to the extend our stub covers the subject, i.e. the very first definition). Of course it must be developed and to include the Erlangen Program seems not a bad idea . --AlekStos 09:32, 8 March 2007 (CST)
- I don't feel that I have a good enough perspective to write this entry. Indeed if someone would ask me what geometry is the best I can do is tell them about Klein's Erlanger Programm, and describe more developments with this phylosophy in mind. Maybe thats the best that can be done...--dlehavi 19:22, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Categories:
- Mathematics Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Mathematics Advanced Articles
- Mathematics Nonstub Articles
- Mathematics Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Mathematics Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Mathematics Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Mathematics Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Mathematics External Articles
- Mathematics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Mathematics Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup