Talk:Space (mathematics)

Lay explanation of space concepts

An inspiring video on Euklidean space, spherical space and hyperbolic space, coral reefs and crochet that may be of relevance here. --Daniel Mietchen 01:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, thank you. However, this could be better used on the "Non-euclidean geometry" article rather than here. Boris Tsirelson 17:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please improve

It seems, I did my best. Now please improve it. (Especially, my poor English... I am not a native English speaker.) Boris Tsirelson 19:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article

I just want to mention that I noticed your work on Space (mathematics) which is now a quite substantial article. I have not reacted until now because, unfortunately, I have not yet read it thoroughly. Probably it needs only some proof reading and polishing before it is ready for approval. But since it is a quite ambitious survey, I think that the title should be changed to reflect this (Abstract space?, I'm not yet sure.) and leave "Space (mathematics)" for a more basic introduction.

Peter Schmitt 22:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the high opinion; I am glade you like it.

About the title: as we know (and non-mathematicians maybe do not know), the word "space" in mathematics is mostly used in such combinations as "linear space", "topological space" etc. Thus, it is "abstract" by default. The other usage could be rather "Space (solid geometry)" or something like that? Boris Tsirelson 10:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is another option: one article "Space (elementary mathematics)", the other "Space (advanced mathematics)". Boris Tsirelson 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving to this talk page. I was not going to discuss the article on your talk page. (The first message was not intended to start a discussion, I just wanted to inform you.)
Concerning the title: There is no hurry. I hope to go through the article soon. (I have to confess that I don't know the term "solid geometry" -- it lets me think of the geometry of solids.) Peter Schmitt 22:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Inline references

As far as I understand, detailed inline refs are encouraged in Wikipedia but discouraged here. The Wikipedia version of this article contains detailed inline refs throughout the section "History". Is it a good idea to do the same here? Boris Tsirelson 19:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I did not realize that you put a parallel version on WP. Am I correct that you first wrote it here, so that no template is needed?

There is no rule that for every statement there should be an explicit reference. On the contrary, the WP style of citations is discouraged. But practice varies and depends on the topic (and I think that different styles should be possible). The general policy (as I understand it) is to write as one would write for a publication in one's field. My personal opionion is that, in most cases, it is sufficient (and preferable) to have a list of sources in the bibliography (may be separated from reading suggestions). You say several times "according to Bourbaki" -- so it is clear that it is a main source. If, for some reason, a precise citation is wanted (e.g., for a verbatim citation) than I would probably add (Bourbaki, p.xxx) in the text (or, depending on the situation, in a reference).

Just an idea: Would "Space (Bourbaki)" fit? Peter Schmitt 23:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)