Talk:Arrangement of lines

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

Configurations[edit]

What is the relationship between an arrangement of lines and a projective configuration? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to add a brief explanation to both articles, and cross-link. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arrangement of lines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arrangement of lines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition section[edit]

The article looks very well done, as might be expected from an editor who has published in the field. Unfortunately, I don't have time at present to give a good review. But on the definition section,

  • It seems light on citations--none for the definition itself?
  • There could be more explanation of concepts and/or wikilinks. Perhaps a digram to illustrate the concepts?
  • As an intro section, the definition section uses fairly high-level concepts that may baffle readers coming from a high-school geometry understanding of the topic. For instance, they might wonder what is an unbounded convex polygon, and if they make the association of that with what you are talking about, how is a wedge of the plane going off to infinity even considered a polygon?

Building a pedagogical transition from an elementary-looking problem to state-of the art understanding is often difficult, but the intro section could benefit from a bit more of an on-ramp. {{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire first paragraph, and its embedded three bullet points, have a single source, because that source was adequate for those definitions. If you think[1] that[1] adding[1] lots[1] of fnords[1] would give readers[1] warm[1] fuzzy[1] feelings[1] then[1] I suppose[1] we could repeat[1] that one footnote[1] multiple[1] times.[1] —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image Examples[edit]

Hi @David Eppstein I appreciate all the wonderful images you make for WP. For the more elementary reader I suggest that the first image is edited such that there is one example of isomorphic arrangements and a small edit to that arrangement to make it not isomorphic. This is will make it more clear to readers that have not encountered isomorphism.

"Two arrangements are said to be isomorphic or combinatorially equivalent if there is a one-to-one boundary-preserving correspondence between the objects in their associated cell complexes."

Then this quote can indicate the image is expository.

Also the current caption on the first image does not make sense to a new reader who has never seen the word simplicial. Some blue text is in order? Czarking0 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first image was really created for a different purpose: it shows a complete quadrangle and complete quadrilateral respectively. But also it shows the difference between simple arrangements and non-simple arrangements, a distinction that I think may be more fundamental than isomorphism here.
The caption describes two terms defined inside this same article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrangement_of_lines&oldid=1226929074"