Talk:Projective frame
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Evilbu in topic Definition does not work for all axiomatic projective planes
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Homography#Projective frame and coordinates was copied or moved into Projective frame with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
First post
editThis needs work, please feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough talk contribs (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 June 2004 (UTC)
Definition does not work for all axiomatic projective planes
editEven when you let the field be a random field, you still won't have frame defined for all cases : not all axiomatic projective planes are isomorphic with a structure over a field (or division ring). The definition however remains what you might expect : four points, no three collinear (in an axiomatic projective plane).
Or am I incorrect (in Dutch we use the word 'skelet' (skeleton) for that, so seeing you call this frame, I thought it was exactly the same) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilbu (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)