Talk:Introduction to systolic geometry

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2008. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.

Introduction template

The "introduction" template was added not by the author of the article, but rather as a result of a detailed discussion on the "deletion" page. I feel that any changes should be discussed first. Katzmik (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template should not be used based merely on intention of being an introductory article, but rather on the actuality. In its current state, this article does not remotely resemble the model introductory articles like Introduction to general relativity or Introduction to special relativity. It provides even less context than the original article and a general audience will not be able to understand a single sentence of it. Until or unless the quality improves drastically, the use of the template is inappropriate since it will mislead the reader. Loom91 (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your suggestions as to how to improve the article. I have already added an introduction giving some context. Note that the article is based on my classroom experience as well as the experience of writing about 40 research articles and a book. The fact that you may not have understood a single word of it may or may not be attributable to your lack of background, but at any rate constructive suggestions as to how to improve the article would be more helpful than sweeping criticism. Katzmik (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no knowledge on the subject matter, so I can not give any suggestions. Since this is meant to be an introductory article, it can not assume any background beyond high school. Imagine that you were giving a one-off lecture to a fresher undergraduate class. That's the level an introductory article must aspire to. When you have achieved that level of accessibility and clarity, feel free to use that template. Until that time, it will be better to leave that template out. Loom91 (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are in error when you assume that an introductory article cannot assume any background beyond high school. At any rate, I have this piece of friendly advice: if you wish to retain your rights as wikipedia contributor, please avoid multiple reversals. While I assume both of your edits to the systolic pages will be reversed, I am afraid someone else may engage you in an edit war which might result in an expulsion. Katzmik (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this is an important issue raised already in the AFD (which was based upon a misunderstanding, then withdrawn after several mathematicians commented, and finally closed somewhat incorrectly as there were opinions to delete): Whether this is an apt subject for a category of articles that aims at non-technical introductions and who would be the audience. My personal take is the follwing: We built articles in general on secondary sources on the topic. Category:Introductions informs that it is about "presenting information to the widest possible audience." Its sister cat mentions "laypersons who may not be able to understand or wish to get into the intricacies and technicalities necessary in the main article." An introductory article for a mathematical topic should therefore IMO be based on existing literature that already addresses a wide audience. Other introductory articles such as Introduction to M-theory use indeed Scientific American and general purpose publications, but it seems to me that systolic geometry has so far only been popularized inside mathematical societies. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the particular introduction to M-theory, but it is obvious that a field such as for example relativity theory has wider name recognition than does systolic geometry. On the other hand, if the introductions trend is to continue, presumably this category will contain articles on fields less known than relativity theory. I would like to offer the following idea. The notices of the AMS is a widely-read periodical even in non-mathematical circles (though it probably does not compete with the Scientific American). In last march's issue there was a piece by Marcel Berger on systolic geometry. Perhaps this is an indication that the subject is beginning to gain wider recognition, although it is of course hard for me to judge, being in the middle of it. At any rate Berger's article is referenced in both systolic geometry and introduction thereto. Katzmik (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, do not threaten me with expulsion. I've been in Wikipedia for a long time, scare tactics lost their power a long time ago. Focus on the issue. The lead begins with the following sentence: "In geometry, a systole is a distance which is characteristic of a compact metric space which is not simply connected. It is the length of a shortest noncontractible loop in the space. Systolic geometry gives lower bounds for various attributes of the space in terms of its systole." That is supposed to be accessible to a general audience of laypersons? Even a math major takes some time to come to the concept of a metric space, let alone topological compactness. An introductory article is not for mathematicians, or even undergraduate math students, it is for people with no more than a rudimentary exposure to the subject matter. As I've said before, please see the other introductory articles for the level of accessibility expected by the community. Do not misuse established mechanisms, it will cause the unsuspecting reader much inconvenience. I'm removing the template until you make the level comparable to the many already existing and accepted introductory articles. Loom91 (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this article can have its intro simplified a bit, and the template can be put back. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems as if Katzmik regards the introduction template as appropriate if the article is readily readable by any mathematician unfamiliar with the subject, and Loom91 considers it appropriate only if the article is addressed to non-mathematicians. The first sentence in the article refers to compact metric spaces. All mathematicians no what those are, even if they've never heard of systolic geometry, so in that sense it can be said to be accessible to a broad audience. But one cannot assume in Wikipedia that the reader is a mathematician. When one writes on a topic in mathematics that is accessible only to mathematicians, one prefaces the whole article with some context-setting words notifying the lay reader that mathematics is what the article will be about. The template says "generally accessible", and maybe the disagreement is about what that means. Maybe the notice should be edited to say something to the effect that this is an introduction intended to be accessible to all mathematicians. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is written with the purpose of context-setting, for the main article at systolic geometry. As far as the sentence about metric spaces is concerned, I did not write it. Katzmik (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair? From a purely wikipedian relationship perspective, any prodding of an article (e.g., in this case what effectively the removal of the top of the page intro tag was/is) should really be done carefully if not sparingly. For example, unless all original editors have retired or become inactive, discussion on the article's talk page (or discussion on one of their user pages if an editor appears active only on other articles) would be a minimally coercive way to bring up any concerns. Such an approach puts the concern on a moral high ground and would demonstrate an understanding of WP:GOODFAITH.

All the same, Loom91's orignal removal of the intro tag would have been acceptable given that there had been no activity in 20 days or so, except for one thing. Loom91's comment--...entirely inappropriate template...--in the edit history seems extreme in the light of the AfD discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Systolic geometry for a beginner, where there were up to 8 edtiors who carefully looked at the article and had no such reaction, which Katzmik points out in his undo edit history comment.

Despite this, Katzmik still turns the other cheek several times in couching his or her replies in WP:GOODFAITH terms to Loom91 here on the discussion page above. The combination of the ...entirely inappropriate template... and the ignorance or defiance of consensus with the claim of "been in Wikipedia for a long time" makes it seem as though Loom91 is being unfair to other editors when she or he states "do not threaten me," by essentially making us read that to follow the discussion. I can understand frustration and being put on the spot in trying to do what seems right, but still I don't see any evidence that Loom91 has shown any of the good faith efforts, which all other editors have (i.e., User talk:Michael Hardy, Oleg Alexandrov, Katzmik, and Tikiwont). --Firefly322 (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to PDF of a book that ties differential geometry to relativity (see the history log for where i placed it). Also here's a link to a review of a similar book[[1]]. The intro of this review using an approach, which might also work in this article. (All editors should be able to read at least read the first page of the link). --Firefly322 (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not reply to Firefly322's comments since they do not concern the article and would drag us off into an unnecessary parabole. Currently, the lead of the article is in a slightly better state, though still far from what any common sense interpretation of generally accessible would entail. I hope the editors here will continue to improve the accessibility of the article to bring it upto the standards set by (for example) the featured introductory article Introduction to general relativity. Meanwhile, I'll be starting a discussion at the template talk that will hopefully clarify that it can only be used on articles meant to be accessible to an audience of layman, rather than an audience of unfamiliar experts. Loom91 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waner's text

In response to the previous comment: are you referring to the notes by Waner? I looked at the first chapter and it does not really seem like something to write home about. It seems like a lot of point set topology and triangle inequality. If you want to define a Riemannian manifold in a concrete way, you can simply start with an imbedding in Euclidean space, consider the induced distance function, and then refer to the standard theorem that every metric on a compact manifold is obtained via such an imbedding. Am I missing something here? Katzmik (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly--(just an aside, as far as I'm concerned, feel free to remove the Waner text link from the article if you think the article would be better off without it.)--I'm just trying to suggest a science context for systolic geometry. Just throwing stuff out there.

Another example, It's crossed my mind to mention that systolic geometry has nothing really to do with systolic function --Firefly322 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. To tell you the truth, I don't know what a systolic function is. As a matter of fact, there are many, many systolic things that have nothing to do with systolic geometry as practiced by Berger, Gromov, and others. You can find a long list of them by going to the webpage for systolic geometry at my homepage, going to the "systoles in mathscinet" page, and clicking on "papers on systoles in mathscinet". Katzmik (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

This is a very interesting read. --C S (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Riemannian geometry

Need to clarify relationship to Sub-Riemannian geometry which is also about isoperimetric stuff; the textbook I read long ago also appealed to some biblical example of putting up a fence to enclose some area. It then launched into non-holonomic constraints, which are entirely absent from this article -- maybe that's the big difference... 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]