112:
102:
81:
253:
194:
50:
21:
848:
be refined later. The dual cone construction may be a good example to show that not every duality is an involution, but if so it does not make sense to explain that before the reader has a clear idea what a duality is. The dual cone construction is unfamiliar even to many mathematicians. I will shortly move it downwards. —
811:
general phenomenon of duality is. You can talk about it using elementary language, yes, but the same is true for the dual cone. The dual cone is easier to precisely define. The dual cone highlights the fact that dualities are not in all cases involutions. In short, the dual cone is a better example than the dual polyhedron.
473:
polytope lie). Likewise for dual graphs (look up what precise assumptions you need to even define the dual graph). The origin of the space is implicit in talking about points in R^2. Other than that it is also entirely irrelevant, any choice of origin will do. Finally, the picture does display the dual cone in red.
830:
who are not yet familiar with the concept. Using an introductory example which is obscure, illustrated by a diagram that's hard to understand, and above all is not reflexive and does not even mention that it's not reflexive, is likely to induce readers to give up and look for some other explanation of duality.
829:
I believe that the article would be improved by removing the "dual cone" example from the introductory section. The essence of duality is that it's reflexive. Ok, the concept is extended to non-reflexive subjects such as dual vector spaces. But the introductory section should be addressed to readers
742:
I am still not convinced that the dual polyhedron is actually easier than the dual cone. As I said before, precisely even defining the dual polyhedron requires quite some space. It is not a very prototypical example. For example, it is harder (it seems) to understand the fact that in practically all
847:
I'm not sure that the dual cone example should be removed, but I am certain it should be moved down. It is not an introductory example, and it should not be the second example on the page. An introductory example should be something familiar to the reader, which gives the correct general idea, to
499:
by saying that the example is not involutive, I might agree with your first point. t doesn't. It is therefore likely to confuse the readers of this "introductory example". Yes, for dual graph, you need a space, but not one with a metric and an origin. The picture displays the dual cone in red, but
883:
I've changed my mind. I think the dual cone and Galois group sections should both be moved down, but the way the article is structured at present there isn't a good place to move them to. And I think some of the more familiar examples should be moved up. But I don't want to undertake a wholesale
810:
Exactly. I think the reader will not benefit from an early mention of the dual polyhedron in the sense that he / she will not grasp better what duality is about in genereal. The duality of polyhedrons is simply not a prototypical duality, therefore it does not help that much to understand what the
814:
If you are still not convinced, I heartily invite you to write an introductory section (possibly starting from what we have in the article) about the dual polyhedron; maybe here in the talk space. You will see that making it precise is not that easy; the space you will spend is better invested in
681:
the subject of the article to readers, using as far as possible examples that may already be familiar to them. Complement of a subset is good for this; so would dual polyhedron be. That section should not be used to teach unfamiliar material to them. I don't object to "dual cone" being explained
606:
subset C of a linear space: namely, the result depends only on the span of C; only in the case of polar duality, convex span replaces the span. In effect, you compose a genuine duality between convex sets (or linear subspaces) with a "forgetful map" from general sets/cones (respectively, general
503:
For an expert like yourself who already knows about dual cones and the more familiar properties of duality, the example may be a good one. But in a list of "introductory examples", I believe it is confusing. It would be better to have an example which most readers are likely to understand, for
472:
I disagree with you regarding all points. It is the very purpose of mentioning this duality that not every duality is involutive, such as the one on vector spaces, for example. To properly define dual polytopes you need quite some space (as opposed to hand-waving where the vertices of the dual
783:
The question is not whether "dual polyhedron is easier than the dual cone", it's whether it is more familiar to the typical reader. The introductory section is not there to present unfamiliar and interesting examples of duality, it's there to help the reader grasp what duality is.
746:@Arcfrk: of course every cone is convex here (and closed). I guess the every day meaning of a cone presupposes this, but I had already added a footnote to make this precise. This is a technical point which deserves to be briefly mentioned, but it is not a fundamental difficulty.
500:
the reader may fail to guess this, the label C is in the lowest of the three triangles into which the red area is divided. You say "any choice of origin will do"; it seems to me that this is false, the position of the cone is determined by the origin, its apex is at the origin.
476:
The purpose of this introductory list is to give examples of dualities whose structural properties appear again and again. Moreover, the rationale behind this list is to increase their generality and mathematical complexity. The dual cone is just fitting right there, I think.
529:
Actually I just learned about the dual cone while working on this article. I chose it as a prototypical example, because it is completely elementary, and the closely related to the duality in optimization. I plan to work on the further sections to make this
553:
I am sorry, Jacob, but
Maproom is right: the "dual cone" as presented is not an example of duality in the sense of the article, and the picture does more harm than good. I suggest that you delete this subsection. There is a standard dual cone construction
926:... in the sense of 6 Flows, 6.5 Flow-colouring duality, textbook *Graph Theory* by Reinhard Diestel. Is this one covered in this article, plus in List of dualities § Mathematics? I am a student yet, but I think this duality is omitted in both. --
416:
Dual graphs are discussed in the article, but only in the case where the embedding surface is a plane (or equivalently a sphere). There is no mention of dual graphs in other surfaces, although the term is used in WP articles,
607:
subsets) to convex (respectively, linear) ones — this is what makes the construction asymmetric. And yes, the convex duality is more sophisticated than the linear one, so it would be logical to treat it later in the article.
342:
387:
I don't know offhand, but I suspect the right answer is that if you find a reliable source talking about permuting this specific matrix in this way you can use whatever terminology they use, and if not then it's
453:
It is poorly explained. The text does not make it sufficiently clear that the position of the cone depends on the origin of the space. The diagram does not make it clear which region constitutes the dual
168:
339:
When the nested objects are matrices, that is a way to see it. But I don't think it is helpful to talk about the multiplication table on the right as something with 3 dimensions
31:
647:
have with it, except that it wasn't familar to them (it was neither to me), and its explanation could be improved (I'd like to contribute when this dispute is settled) . -
580:
Well, we can certainly tweak the section and emphasize it is a duality in the narrow sense on cones. If you dislike the picture, maybe you can create a better one?
558:(related to polarity for convex sets containing the origin) that qualifies far better under this rubric; whether or not it is an introductory example is arguable.
348:
954:
158:
602:
The key word is "convex". Applying this construction to an arbitrary set (even a cone) suffers from the same defect as taking orthogonal complement to an
631:
There is no formal definition of "duality" in the article; so it should cover all mathematical concepts which are called "dual". Apparently, "dual cone"
443:
I think the recent addition of the "Dual cone" section, and particularly its position near the top of the "Introductory examples", is unfortunate:
134:
949:
207:
285:
I often use this to take a closer look at the binary digits, when the elements of a matrix are binary numbers. That can be seen in the
712:
Ok, I see. Do you suggest another non-involutionary introductory example, or do you think we don't need one (in the introduction)? -
125:
86:
355:, and the dual is a 2×2 matrix containing colored graphs. How would you call the equivalent to the transpose in this case?
61:
237:
717:
652:
870:
820:
754:
585:
542:
482:
27:
533:
My comment about the origin was intended to say that the precise choice of the origin does not matter. Choosing
216:
909:
397:
321:
282:
931:
713:
648:
67:
111:
866:
816:
750:
581:
538:
478:
49:
20:
905:
393:
377:
333:
317:
298:
133:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
222:
117:
424:. In view of this omission, it is not surprising that there is also no mention of Petrie duals.
252:
101:
80:
889:
884:
reorganization of the article's examples, so I'm going to leave it alone, at least for now. —
853:
835:
789:
687:
509:
462:
429:
927:
612:
563:
218:
193:
293:
below. Does anyone know, how this kind of duality is called? It's not limited to matrices.
372:
294:
450:
It is obscure. Dual polytopes, and dual graphs, will be more familiar to most readers.
943:
352:
885:
849:
831:
785:
683:
640:
505:
458:
425:
389:
367:
290:
677:
As I said before, the purpose of the "Introductory examples" section should be to
220:
935:
913:
893:
874:
857:
839:
824:
793:
758:
721:
691:
656:
644:
616:
608:
589:
567:
559:
546:
513:
486:
466:
433:
401:
382:
325:
302:
130:
749:
I suggest we all spend more time on the article itself than on the talk space.
682:
later in the article, particularly now that that subsection is rather clearer.
421:
107:
313:
309:
286:
351:"containing" 2×2 matrices the equivalent of your tensor would be a
251:
447:
It is not an example of duality: the relation is not symmetric.
223:
187:
43:
15:
504:
example the way that the octahedron is the dual of the cube.
289:
multiplication table on the right, with the permuted binary
526:
What exactly do you consider confusing about the dual cone?
358:
What I was looking for when I asked this question was
129:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
637:"an example of duality in the sense of the article"
366:The four elements of the dual matrix are permuted
312:of dimensions (m,n,p,q) and you are taking a
231:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
904:The order-theoretic duals link is missing
743:dualities you have a reversal of morphisms.
273:matrices, it is possible to define a dual
75:
639:. I don't understand the problems that
308:It sounds to me that you really have a
241:when more than 10 sections are present.
77:
47:
7:
123:This article is within the scope of
66:It is of interest to the following
955:High-priority mathematics articles
14:
235:may be automatically archived by
143:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
283:v:User:Watchduck/hat#Dual_matrix
248:How would you call this duality?
192:
146:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
110:
100:
79:
48:
19:
163:This article has been rated as
30:on 21 July 2008. The result of
26:This article was nominated for
914:15:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
537:origin of course does matter.
1:
894:20:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
875:18:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
858:21:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
840:19:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
137:and see a list of open tasks.
950:C-Class mathematics articles
303:22:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
256:16×16 matrix of 1×4 matrices
434:22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
971:
936:13:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
825:12:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
794:08:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
759:08:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
722:17:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
692:17:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
657:16:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
617:07:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
590:15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
568:05:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
547:21:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
514:16:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
495:If the dual cone example
487:12:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
467:10:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
402:22:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
383:21:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
326:22:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
259:Below the dual 1×4 matrix
162:
95:
74:
362:™ to say something like:
169:project's priority scale
865:OK, move it down then.
126:WikiProject Mathematics
922:Flow-colouring duality
262:
238:Lowercase sigmabot III
56:This article is rated
392:and off-topic here. —
255:
345:as something with 4)
149:mathematics articles
281:matrices. Compare:
263:
118:Mathematics portal
62:content assessment
815:other dualities.
381:
346:
343:this Cayley table
338:
265:When you have an
261:of 16×16 matrices
245:
244:
183:
182:
179:
178:
175:
174:
42:
41:
962:
714:Jochen Burghardt
649:Jochen Burghardt
556:for convex cones
375:
340:
337:
330:
240:
224:
196:
188:
151:
150:
147:
144:
141:
120:
115:
114:
104:
97:
96:
91:
83:
76:
59:
53:
52:
44:
23:
16:
970:
969:
965:
964:
963:
961:
960:
959:
940:
939:
924:
902:
867:Jakob.scholbach
817:Jakob.scholbach
751:Jakob.scholbach
582:Jakob.scholbach
539:Jakob.scholbach
479:Jakob.scholbach
441:
414:
331:
250:
236:
225:
219:
201:
148:
145:
142:
139:
138:
116:
109:
89:
60:on Knowledge's
57:
12:
11:
5:
968:
966:
958:
957:
952:
942:
941:
923:
920:
918:
906:Chris2crawford
901:
898:
897:
896:
880:
879:
878:
877:
845:
844:
843:
842:
812:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
747:
744:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
622:
621:
620:
619:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
573:
572:
571:
570:
551:
550:
549:
531:
527:
519:
518:
517:
516:
501:
490:
489:
474:
456:
455:
451:
448:
440:
437:
413:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
394:David Eppstein
368:Walsh matrices
363:
356:
334:David Eppstein
318:David Eppstein
291:Walsh matrices
260:
258:
257:
249:
246:
243:
242:
230:
227:
226:
221:
217:
215:
212:
211:
203:
202:
197:
191:
185:
181:
180:
177:
176:
173:
172:
161:
155:
154:
152:
135:the discussion
122:
121:
105:
93:
92:
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
967:
956:
953:
951:
948:
947:
945:
938:
937:
933:
929:
921:
919:
916:
915:
911:
907:
899:
895:
891:
887:
882:
881:
876:
872:
868:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
855:
851:
841:
837:
833:
828:
827:
826:
822:
818:
813:
809:
808:
795:
791:
787:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
760:
756:
752:
748:
745:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
693:
689:
685:
680:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
618:
614:
610:
605:
601:
600:
599:
598:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
569:
565:
561:
557:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
515:
511:
507:
502:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
488:
484:
480:
475:
471:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
452:
449:
446:
445:
444:
438:
436:
435:
431:
427:
423:
420:
411:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
384:
379:
374:
371:
369:
364:
361:
360:the right way
357:
354:
353:graph product
350:
344:
335:
329:
328:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
254:
247:
239:
234:
229:
228:
214:
213:
210:
209:
205:
204:
200:
195:
190:
189:
186:
170:
166:
165:High-priority
160:
157:
156:
153:
136:
132:
128:
127:
119:
113:
108:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
90:High‑priority
88:
85:
82:
78:
73:
69:
63:
55:
51:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
925:
917:
903:
900:Missing Link
886:Mark Dominus
850:Mark Dominus
846:
678:
636:
632:
603:
555:
534:
496:
457:
442:
418:
415:
365:
359:
278:
274:
270:
266:
264:
232:
206:
198:
184:
164:
124:
68:WikiProjects
35:
928:Szozdakosvi
412:Dual graphs
140:Mathematics
131:mathematics
87:Mathematics
944:Categories
422:Dyck graph
349:this graph
341:(or about
277:matrix of
269:matrix of
679:introduce
604:arbitrary
439:Dual cone
373:Watchduck
314:transpose
295:Watchduck
530:clearer.
316:of it. —
233:365 days
199:Archives
28:deletion
832:Maproom
786:Maproom
684:Maproom
641:Maproom
506:Maproom
497:started
459:Maproom
426:Maproom
167:on the
58:C-class
645:Arcfrk
609:Arcfrk
560:Arcfrk
347:. For
310:tensor
287:nimber
64:scale.
635:such
454:cone.
390:WP:OR
378:quack
932:talk
910:talk
890:talk
871:talk
854:talk
836:talk
821:talk
790:talk
755:talk
718:talk
688:talk
653:talk
643:and
613:talk
586:talk
564:talk
543:talk
510:talk
483:talk
463:talk
430:talk
419:e.g.
398:talk
322:talk
299:talk
159:High
36:keep
34:was
535:one
279:m×n
275:p×q
271:p×q
267:m×n
946::
934:)
912:)
892:)
873:)
856:)
838:)
823:)
792:)
757:)
720:)
690:)
655:)
633:is
615:)
588:)
566:)
545:)
512:)
485:)
465:)
432:)
400:)
324:)
301:)
930:(
908:(
888:(
869:(
852:(
834:(
819:(
788:(
753:(
716:(
686:(
651:(
611:(
584:(
562:(
541:(
508:(
481:(
461:(
428:(
396:(
380:)
376:(
370:.
336::
332:@
320:(
297:(
208:1
171:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
