Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Reference to The Grassmann Family, Justus, Hermmann, Robert in the indicated section[edit]

Edit to Notes[edit]

Note 3 full citation is Greek and Vedic Geometry Frits Staal Journal of Indian Philosophy 27 (1/2):105-127 (1999)

New lead changes by Garrett.stephens[edit]

@Garrett.stephens has updated the lead from the previous version which was discussed fairly extensively here Talk:Geometry/Archive_2#New_lead recently.

Does anyone know what the phrase "spatial (static) patterns" means. I am a professional research geometer and have absolutely no idea what this means, and it certainly doesn't seem to capture most of the geometry I've ever seen, which is among other things about objects, not patterns and is can be highly dynamic. The previous opening sentences "Geometry is concerned with properties of space that are related with distance, shape, size, and relative position of figures" seem to me to be more accurate and more understandable to a layperson, so I don't understand why they've been moved to the second paragraph of the lead and replaced by something obscure and non-standard. Tazerenix (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that Garrett.stephens's version is not an improvement. As it introduces new concepts, it should have been discussed here first. According to WP:BRD, I'll revert it. D.Lazard (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I want to apologize for the etiquette error of updating it before making a new section in the talk page. In math, it seems the answers are self apparent, and the 'previous v. current' look at that proposed change (I thought) seemed to display that clarity. Perhaps I have been found to be wrong.

My 1st question in light of the response to my error is: What is an object? In object-oriented logic, for example, one would be talking about variables (X,Y,Z, etc). In that sense, Algebra is more appropriately the study of "objects"... If I could I'd like to prompt clarification on that distinction.... In terms of Physics as well, mass (object) v. energy has also caused a lot of fuss in the field...

2nd question is where you say "not about patterns". I guess I'd just like clarification on why geometry is not a study of spatial patterns. Take topography for instance. If we declare geometry is on object [instead] of pattern, I feel the way is not prepared for topography, spatial analysis, tensor geometry, fluid dynamics, quantum dynamics, pattern recognition programming in computing, etc., for their fair shake of "Geometry" if that makes sense. These are all fields that deserve a fair path to consideration of their people being geometers per their having evolved from the ancient geometry of Euclid, who began geometry with allowable spatial movements and exercises prompting readers to reach QED.

Garrett.stephens (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps an instance of this discussion's importance is in the works of Mathematicians Ralph Abraham and Robert Shaw "Dynamics--the Geometry of Behavior" Garrett.stephens (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add me to the list of people baffled by the attempted new phrasing "spatial (static) patterns such as [list of things that are planar not spatial and are shapes not patterns]". I don't think the addition was an improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I yield...

To me, I hear: Geometry is similar to Arithmetic in being a study the ancients did. When you do Geometry, you will work with terms like [term 1], [term 2], [term 3], [term 4] ...etc

Geometry is the study of spatial (static) patterns.

Why (static)? Well, because that paves the way for what a shape is. It's a pattern in space that is static enough to yield itself to analysis. (Can be said to be in "stasis"). Garrett.stephens (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both versions of the lead have issues, but the previous lead strikes a better balance among, e.g., accuracy, brevity, clarity. I too have a problem with, e.g., dynamic, pattern, static. Is a timelike curve in a Lorentzian manifold static or dynamic? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A person who studies geometry is commonly called a 'geometrist' worldwide beyond the USA. Should this not be added to the end of tte first paragraph in the Lead? Billsmith60 (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? I thought the word was "geometer". Google ngrams agrees, with "geometrist" far lower in word frequency. Do you have any evidence of "geometrist" being more popular anywhere? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, it's not that "geometrist" is more popular just that it's common enough here in the UK: Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How common is "common enough"? nGrams shows it far behind. This is an encyclopedia, not a thesaurus. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information.svg The redirect Geometric space has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 12 § Geometric space until a consensus is reached. fgnievinski (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A space is not always geometric[edit]

@D.Lazard: Revision added the text This enlargement of the scope of geometry led to a change of meaning of the word "space", which originally referred to the three-dimensional space of the physical world and its model provided by Euclidean geometry; presently a geometric space, or simply a space is a mathematical structure on which some geometry is defined. However, the word space can refer to mathematical structures that are not geometric, e.g., vector spaces over arbitrary fields. I'm not sure how it should be worded, since the term Geometry is itself murky. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This depends of your definition of “geometric”. Currently, nobody pretends that algebraic geometry and finite geometry are not geometry, and vector spaces over a finite field belong to both areas. There is nothing murky in geometry. Simply, this is a scientific area and not a mathematical term, and, as such, it is not subject to a mathematical definition. D.Lazard (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is Geometry not a mathematical discipline? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geometry just refers (except in very limited cases in NCG) to any set whose elements we can describe as "points" because in addition the set has some information about how its elements have a "position" relative to each other. "Space" is just a catch all term used to describe such structures, so I think its sort of tautological to say Geometry is the study of Spaces.
There's a more limited definition of geometry in the context of topology which refers to spaces with some particular kind of rigidifying geometric structure on them such as a metric, Riemannian metric, volume form, algebraic structure, etc. But I don't think that really applies to "Geometry" in the large. Tazerenix (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never seen an Algebra text refer to the elements of, e.g., a vector space, a Fréchet space , as a point. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The requirement is not that a textbook refers to them as "points" but that there is a relation between elements which provides information about their relative position. In the case of a vector space, the relation is linear (you can specify when two elements lie along the same line). In particular there is an affine structure (and more, as there is a distinguished point at the "center", another positional relationship). Of course an algebra book will not think of vector spaces as spaces if its goal is to do algebra, but they certainly don't refer to them as "vector sets". Tazerenix (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Topology there is no concept of relative position. Does that mean that a topological space is not a space.? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Closeness is the basis of topology, and is a sort of relative position. However, although although Tazerenix's definition of points and spaces is ingenious, I am not sure that I completely agree with it, and it is WP:OR. So, it is better to say that space, point, geometry, geometric method, geometric space, etc. are what is so called by the community of mathematicians. These terms do not require to be formally defined as they are only used to provide an intuitive support to reasonnings, which otherwise would be more difficult to understand. For example, learning the axioms of vector spaces is easy, but understanding the richness of the concept cannot be done without considering the geometrical aspects of the concept. D.Lazard (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See for example Kuratowski closure axioms in which topology is defined entirely using the concept of a point being "close" to a set. This is an example of information about the relative positions of points: If a point x is close to a set A and a point y is not, then x is closer to A than y! Tazerenix (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not so. None of the axioms refer to closeness. There is a derived concept of a point being close to a set, but none of the axioms use it. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you define the relation " is close to " as " is contained in " then the axioms of a topology can be specified as
  1. No point is close to the empty set
  2. Every point of is close to
  3. The points of which are close to are the points close to or to
  4. If a point is closeto the set of points close to , then is close to
A set with a relation between points and sets of "closeness" is equivalent to specifying a topology (precisely, define the closure operator by ). Tazerenix (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking as a topologist, I don't believe that every topological space ought to be described as geometric, however one might reasonably define the term. While there is, of course, a close connection between topology and geometry, I don't think topology is best described as a subset of geometry. Paul August 16:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would probably classify Topology as part of Geometry, although topologies not satisfying the separation axioms might be counter-intuitive. I could probably make an argument for considering it to be a part of Analysis, albeit a weak one. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]