Talk:Manifold/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Too technical, especially the summary

The summary of this article does not comply with wikipedia guidelines for technical articles.

• Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Put_the_least_obscure_parts_of_the_article_up_front
• Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Avoid_overly_technical_language
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Format_of_the_first_sentence

Before removing the technical tag, the issue should be addressed. If an editor believes the subject matter is too technical for a simple explanation, that should be explained in the talk page first before removing the Template:Technical.

There's already a pretty simple explanation as the second paragraph. Consider expanding this and swapping with the current lead sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.30.174 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)

You have added a {{technical}} tag to the article with the summary "Re-added prematurely removed technical template; please discuss in talk page before removal". I have not found any recent removal of such a tag in the history of the article. Can you indicate the date of this removal?

You suggest to begin the article with something such that : "In mathematics, circles, lines and planes are manifolds, but not an eight figure...". This seems more confusing than the present lead. As the subject is intrinsically technical, it is very difficult to explain what is a manifold to someone who do not know anything in mathematics. So there were a long discussion between editors on the best way of writing the lead (see Talk:Manifold/Archive 7), and the lead results of a WP:consensus. In short, the lead is the best that the competent editors can do, and, if someone has an idea for improving it, he must discuss first on the talk page. This makes your tag irrelevant, and I'll remove it. D.Lazard (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

My anonymous comments are auto-signed by the bot. I don't have an account; I'm not sure what the benefit of the signature is; is there one?

The first technical template was reverted by D. Lazard on June 7 per the history of the article.

I realize a simplified summary would not be "100% accurate", but as it stands, it is too technical. I think the goal of the summary of the article, and the opening sentence especially, should be to communicate as best as possible and to the broadest audience possible, what the article is about. This official wikipedia guidelines set this bar at high-school level education. With the current opening sentence and summary, there is no chance for someone with a high-school education to understand what a Manifold is after reaching this article. For technical folks such as your self, they can continue reading past he laymans introduction into the deeply technical. I'm by no means a mathematician, but I have many years additional math education over highschool and this summary still goes almost entirely over my head. The reference to the circle and the line communicate the concept quickly and concisely, although I agree not with 100% accuracy. If such an example can get 50% of the population up to speed on approximately (but not exactly) what a manifold is, I think that's better than the current 0% (rounded to the nearest percent). I think sacrificing some slight bit of accuracy to help a broader audience learn about manifolds, at least in the opening sentence, is a fantastic path forward. Such a simplified description should definitely include the caveat that it's not a perfect definition and that the highly technical and more complete definition continues later. 204.237.165.126 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Usage in bioinformatics

It seems that the term manifold is loosely borrowed by the field of bioinformatics as a space of reduced dimensions that captures correlations (especially with single-cell data). It may be beneficial to comment on the usage differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheater no1 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Errata?

• It seems that the equation $\chi _{\mathrm {plus} }(x,y)=t={\frac {y}{1-x}}$ should actually be $\chi _{\mathrm {plus} }(x,y)=t={\frac {y}{x-1}}$. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.58.195 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

What's the application?

I agree with the critic above. The article explains nothing. It just regurgitates material that these maths geniuses already know. I'm none the wiser for reading it. Above all, there is no hint given of what the real-world application of such calculus might be. What do people skilled in manifolds do for a living? Are they chemists, physicists, architects, cartographers, or what? How does this calculus assist their work? What practical knowledge is yielded or what does manifold calculous achieve in the execution of some real world project that could not be as well achieved any other way? If the goal of its use was stated at the outset of the article, I might be better able to understand something of it. In illustration, the article as it currently stands in November 2020 is like a detailed description of a railway train, but it doesn't explain what a train is for, ie, a means of transportation. I am like a six-month old baby seeing a train for the first time and having no idea what it is for. The article is completely opaque. Likeamanshand (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Most fundamental mathematical concepts do not have direct applications to the real world. They use to apply to other mathematical theories that themselves have direct applications to the real world, or have applications to more applied theories, and so on. For example, the concept of prime number has no direct application to the real world, but it is used in the cryptographic protocols that are used for the security of your connexion to Wikipedia.

Manifolds are used in almost all areas of knowledge that are related to geometry. For example, the spacetime of general relativity requires the concept of manifold for being defined. More practically, I an quiet sure that manifolds were used when designing the algorithms that your smartphone use for localizing you with the GPS system. Even if manifolds are not directly used for this particular application, they belong to the knowledge that engineers need for being able to develop this application. D.Lazard (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@D.Lazard: Much of what you said here could be transported to the article, or another page even, to provide helpful context, but it skirts the point. @Likeamanshand: has commented on a general over-indulgence on technical aspects and text kruft, which has happened over time in this article, and which could really use improvement. I have noticed browsing wikiProject Math that this article used to be FA-tier, and looking at its archived version, it does indeed seem much more well-organised, polished, and maybe even newcomer-accessible than its current self. I think this page deserves some reworking to return to its former category once more, and a civil "outsider" perspective like the one above might be key to making this possible. Thank you for reading, anyone who has. Horsesizedduck (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. - I deleted the comment originally below this as it seemed completely trite. Hope nobody minds. Horsesizedduck (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)