Talk:Geometry: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>David Lehavi No edit summary |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
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) | |||
== history of geometry == | |||
I've started a very bare history of geometry. I am willing to do the work to import the 1911 Britannica history into this article - I have a printed 1911 Britannica, so I can clean up an online version (such as [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Geometry this one]) to more faithfully reflect the original. There's lots of interesting geometry since 1911, but there was non-Euclidian geometry in 1911, and I'd be happy to leave the last 96 years of geometry to someone significantly more expert. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 19:02, 21 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:08, 26 September 2007
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)
history of geometry
I've started a very bare history of geometry. I am willing to do the work to import the 1911 Britannica history into this article - I have a printed 1911 Britannica, so I can clean up an online version (such as this one) to more faithfully reflect the original. There's lots of interesting geometry since 1911, but there was non-Euclidian geometry in 1911, and I'd be happy to leave the last 96 years of geometry to someone significantly more expert. Anthony Argyriou 19:02, 21 April 2007 (CDT)