Talk:Delone set

Proposed merge of Berlekamp switching game into Delone set

The new article Berlekamp switching game covers a particular case that has received special attention and has an interesting historical hook. However, I am skeptical that it is best served as a stand-alone article, rather than as an interesting illustration of more general ideas. What do others think of a merge to this article? (Or, is there a more appropriate target?) JBL (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure, as that article is way less technical/mathematical than this, so that a merge might make the material seem relatively inaccessible for readers interested in such problems but lacking a mathematical background. Not sure if that matters, but something to bear in mind. If it is merged, then please with a redirect to an anchor. PJTraill (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good fit for this article. If it is to be merged somewhere, Hamming bound#Covering radius and packing radius would be a much better target. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: After working on improvements to the switching game article, I think it would not be a good choice to merge it anywhere. It is too specific an example to merge to Delone set, and too indirectly related to the Hamming bound (being about a specific code rather than an optimal code) to merge there. I think keeping it as a separate standalone article is a better choice, and that it has adequate sourcing to do so. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, particularly in light of the impressive work that David Eppstein has put into the article Berlekamp switching game, that a merge no longer seems like a sensible idea; I withdraw the proposal and have removed the tags from both articles. --JBL (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why does "relatively dense" redirect to Delone?

I think the notion of "relatively dense" is much (very, very much) more common and standard than the notion of "Delone" set. I think it's a (very) bad idea/thing that "relatively dense set", notion known to any student of mathematics having had a first course in topology, is just a redirect to the page entitled "Delone" set which I never heard of in 30 years of teaching and research in mathematics. — MFH:Talk 11:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you propose an alternate definition of "relatively dense"? I recall that, as a student, I had trouble understanding dense sets, cause the definitions all seemed all very hand-wavey. The definition provided here is simple, concrete and direct; I assume students would like it. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Should this link to "Delaunay triangulation"?

Was the concept of a "Delone set" first proposed by Delone or someone else? My (ignorant) speculation was that it was named based on some relation to Delaunay triangulation. It might be helpful to link whatever work of Delone's (a.k.a. Delaunay) was the basis for this name and explain a bit more how the name came about.

As a separate question, should this article perhaps describe Poisson disk sampling? –jacobolus (t) 22:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I just now added a sentence to Poisson disk sampling to point back at this article; however, pointing to that article from here seems not quite right, unless there was some discussion of optimal algorithms for constructing 2D epsilon-nets. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)