391:
that time geometric theorems were treated as an absolute objective truth knowable through intuition and reason, similarly to objects of natural science; and axioms were treated as obvious implications of definitions.", with two refs, and paragraph 6: "This discovery forced the abandonment of the pretensions to the absolute truth of
Euclidean geometry. It showed that axioms are not "obvious", nor "implications of definitions". Rather, they are hypotheses. To what extent do they correspond to an experimental reality? This important physical problem has nothing anymore to do with mathematics. Even if a "geometry" does not correspond to an experimental reality, its theorems remain no less "mathematical truths"."
445:
science" and "classical geometry is a universal language of mathematics" are too vague to be useful, are inherently subjective, and don't really add anything to the article. While it's true that you can find instances of mathematicians say those things, ripped out of context like that, they become meaningless. I don't really know what it ACTUALLY means to be an "autonomous science" or a "universal language" of mathematics. Are the two things opposed to one another? I think it would be remiss to characterise the many different philosophical views mathematicians past and present have into such a cut and dry binary classification as "modern" vs. "classic".
414:
properties of the space. More exactly: all three-dimensional
Euclidean spaces are mutually isomorphic. In this sense we have "the" three-dimensional Euclidean space. In terms of Bourbaki, the corresponding theory is univalent. In contrast, topological spaces are generally non-isomorphic, their theory is multivalent. A similar idea occurs in mathematical logic: a theory is called categorical if all its models are mutually isomorphic. According to Bourbaki, the study of multivalent theories is the most striking feature which distinguishes modern mathematics from classical mathematics."
327:
166:
156:
135:
31:
89:
64:
244:
22:
402:
Line 4 of the table, "mathematical objects are given to us with their structure" – "each mathematical theory describes its objects by some of their properties" corresponds to paragraph 3: "The relation between the two geometries, Euclidean and projective, shows that mathematical objects are not given
419:
Line 7 of the table, "geometry is an autonomous and living science" – "classical geometry is a universal language of mathematics" corresponds to paragraph 2 of
Section 2.2 "The golden age...": "According to Bourbaki, "passed over in its role as an autonomous and living science, classical geometry is
503:
Are the image and associated information saying that a space having an inner product has a norm, ∴ a metric, ∴ a topology? If so, the image is an overcomplicated representation for such a chain reaction. If not, it should be clarified. Regardless of what's being communicated, the image does the job
390:
In particular, the first two lines of the table, "axioms are obvious implications of definitions" – "axioms are conventional" and "theorems are absolute objective truth" – "theorems are implications of the corresponding axioms", correspond to the last phrase of the first paragraph of "History": "At
947:
cannot. And in fact, even more paragraphs specifically explain graphical conventions. And, what to do with examples on Fig. 4? I only can write instead 'the first figure in the next section'; but this is not more modular; and 'Fig. 4' occurs 4 times; to write "the mentioned figure"? Again, awkward
396:
Line 3 of the table, "relationships between points, lines etc. are determined by their nature" – "relationships between points, lines etc. are essential; their nature is not" corresponds to paragraph 7: "It shows that relations between objects are essential in mathematics, while the nature of the
444:
I appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond in such depth. I believe the main problem is that the table doesn't really add anything to the article. As it stands, it's a rather subjective and incomplete summary of the text. I think statements like "geometry is an autonomous and living
912:
Right. I would advocate making the main text more self-contained and not referring directly to figures. On the other hand, text that specifically explains a figure (and in particular graphical conventions) should be in the caption. This would make the article more modular, and easier to edit by
480:
I just think it looks slightly unprofessional. I wouldn't expect to find a table like this in an encyclopaedia or textbook. I think the content in the table is too nuanced and subtle to be put into a table. The ideas in that table need to be explained in complete sentences, with qualifications,
373:
I agree that I am a semi-informed dilettante in the history of mathematics. However, I do not agree that "there is no evidence or citations for it either". Just the opposite! Each item of the table corresponds to some phrase of the "History" section. And each of these phrases has a reference.
734:
I just had the pleasure of reading through the types of spaces section. There is some wonderfully clear prose explaining even difficult high level topics like non-commutative geometry, schemes, and topoi in relatively simple terms and including excellent context and significance. Bravo, all!
413:
Line 6 of the table, "all geometric properties of the space follow from the axioms" – "axioms of a space need not determine all geometric properties" corresponds to the last paragraph of
Section 3.2 "Two relations...": "Euclidean axioms leave no freedom, they determine uniquely all geometric
522:
The image is a part of a stub to which I have added a lot. Maybe it really is an overcomplicated representation for the chain. Delete it if you wish. I did not delete it mostly because it seems to be desirable to have at least one image, and I did not invent a better one.
856:
As far as I understand, on
Knowledge figures are usually not numbered. Technically, numbers could be included into captions. But I am not sure, what is better. To add figure number into captions, or reformulate the text so that images need not be numbered?
589:
Surely not. For example, the real line is a (one-dimensional) real linear space. But it is not a complex linear space. On the other hand, the complex plane is a one-dim complex linear space, but can also be treated as a two-dim real linear space.
553:
222:
1012:
403:
to us with their structure. Rather, each mathematical theory describes its objects by some of their properties, precisely those that are put as axioms at the foundations of the theory."
552:
I agree that this image needs improvement. I think it should be a poset diagram, where each arrow represents a node covering another node. The current diagram has extraneous arrows.
842:
I just noted that figure numbers are lost in transition from WikiJournal of
Science to Knowledge. This is unfortunate, since these numbers are sometimes mentioned in the text.
604:
Someone was too bold to implement the wrong idea expressed above (see version of 00:01, 10 April 2010). Thus I've added an explanatory note to the article. Hope it will help.
351:
The differences section in this article is unaccountably poor. There is no evidence or citations for it either. It sounds like the musings of a semi-informed dilettante.
1002:
872:
Figures are quite sparse in this article, we can do without figure numbers. I found only one instance of a figure number in the text (lead section) and I removed it.
1017:
35:
466:
Well, then, really, I do not know. It seems to me the summary is useful, but maybe it is not. Also I'd be interested in hearing from other readers on this.
1027:
626:
This article should mention category theory: in a way, it provides a unified framework that treats most (all?) of the enumerated types of spaces at once.
212:
408:
Line 5 of the table, "geometry corresponds to an experimental reality" – "geometry is a mathematical truth" corresponds to paragraph 6 again (see above).
660:
is both a space and an algebraic structure, so what is the difference? Can there be spaces that are not algebraic structures, and reverse? And so on. --
997:
95:
69:
1007:
755:
586:
the former), since each real number is also a complex number." Isn't a real linear space also a complex linear space, not the other way around?
320:
188:
1022:
482:
633:
452:
358:
557:
179:
140:
992:
804:
538:
I think it is a good image, but it would be interesting to add
Uniform spaces between Metric spaces and Topological spaces.
44:
800:
918:
877:
696:
504:
much less efficiently and effectively than could a simple line of text with some arrows or other symbols. See
486:
481:
explanations, citations and references. (by the way, I am the original anon posting from a different computer)
637:
456:
362:
781:
740:
704:
543:
505:
314:
259:
50:
165:
948:
and hardly more modular. Or maybe include that figure twice, here for example and there for content?
914:
873:
629:
354:
100:
74:
945:'The transition from "Euclidean" to "topological" is forgetful ... barbed tail, "↣" rather than "→"'
21:
653:
539:
512:
430:
Anyway, I'll be happy of corrections/improvements made by an expert in the history of mathematics.
187:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
171:
332:
263:
155:
134:
582:
Part of paragraph 2 reads: "Every complex linear space is also a real linear space (the latter
296:
273:
974:
953:
895:
862:
847:
827:
812:
777:
763:
736:
719:
700:
680:
609:
595:
528:
471:
435:
379:
303:
288:
665:
269:
508:
986:
251:
657:
695:
The article should have a section explaining the concept of subspace. Currently,
970:
949:
891:
858:
843:
823:
808:
759:
715:
676:
605:
591:
524:
467:
431:
375:
184:
699:
makes an appearance that there are merely several terminological coincidences.
88:
63:
978:
957:
922:
899:
881:
866:
851:
831:
816:
785:
767:
744:
723:
708:
684:
669:
661:
641:
613:
599:
561:
547:
532:
516:
490:
475:
460:
439:
383:
366:
161:
890:
Sparse, but still, Figs 3, 4 and 9 are mentioned in
Taxonomy.../Relations...
299:
751:
292:
420:
thus transfigured into a universal language of contemporary mathematics"."
306:
652:
I think it would be useful to note the difference between a Space and an
331:
and the updated content was reintegrated into the
Knowledge page under a
243:
326:
799:
Sect. "Linear and topological spaces": why replace the blue link to "
969:
Anyway, now the figures are numbered, thanks to MiratusMachina.
754:. By the way, a somewhat better version of this article is now
941:'The two arrows are not invertible, but for different reasons'
238:
15:
675:
Why only algebraic structure? Topological structure is not.
451:
I'd be interested in hearing from other readers on this.
425:
Lines 8 and 9 of the table are probably uncontroversial.
336:
714:
Or maybe a separate article "subspace (mathematics)"?
943:
can sit in the caption. But the next two paragraphs
183:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
750:You are welcome. The high level topics are due to
648:Difference between Space and Algebraic structure
98:, a project which is currently considered to be
1013:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Mathematics
939:Sounds good, but... how to do it? The phrase
8:
803:" with the red link to nonexistent article "
129:
58:
805:Lebesgue covering dimension (mathematics)
110:Knowledge:WikiProject Citizendium Porting
113:Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting
1003:Knowledge vital articles in Mathematics
131:
60:
19:
758:, and probably will be copied hereto.
312:
1018:C-Class vital articles in Mathematics
554:2607:9880:1A18:33:2576:CD9D:DE2C:19F3
7:
177:This article is within the scope of
94:This article is within the scope of
756:accepted to WikiJournal of Sciences
49:It is of interest to the following
1028:High-priority mathematics articles
776:Congratulations to you and Ozob --
319:: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
14:
197:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
998:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
325:
242:
200:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
164:
154:
133:
87:
62:
29:
20:
217:This article has been rated as
96:WikiProject Citizendium Porting
1008:C-Class level-5 vital articles
1:
832:08:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
577:Linear and topological spaces
548:17:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
533:20:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
517:17:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
491:12:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
476:06:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
461:02:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
440:07:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
384:07:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
367:20:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
191:and see a list of open tasks.
1023:C-Class mathematics articles
116:Citizendium Porting articles
801:Lebesgue covering dimension
1044:
724:16:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
709:11:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
614:16:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
600:07:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
817:20:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
697:subspace (disambiguation)
685:13:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
670:06:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
642:02:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
216:
149:
82:
57:
979:17:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
958:04:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
923:21:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
900:16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
882:11:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
867:10:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
852:10:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
786:16:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
768:05:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
745:22:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
562:02:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
272:; et al. (1 June 2018).
223:project's priority scale
274:"Spaces in mathematics"
266:). It was published as
180:WikiProject Mathematics
993:C-Class vital articles
281:WikiJournal of Science
256:WikiJournal of Science
506:containment hierarchy
293:10.15347/WJS/2018.002
36:level-5 vital article
730:Wonderful exposition
262:in 2 November 2017 (
203:mathematics articles
654:Algebraic structure
107:Citizendium Porting
70:Citizendium Porting
567:Taxonomy of spaces
172:Mathematics portal
45:content assessment
946:
942:
822:I just fixed it.
656:. For example, a
632:comment added by
357:comment added by
344:
343:
330:
250:This article was
237:
236:
233:
232:
229:
228:
128:
127:
124:
123:
1035:
944:
940:
644:
397:objects is not."
369:
340:
329:
324:
318:
310:
278:
267:
264:reviewer reports
246:
239:
205:
204:
201:
198:
195:
174:
169:
168:
158:
151:
150:
145:
137:
130:
118:
117:
114:
111:
108:
91:
84:
83:
78:
66:
59:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1034:
1033:
1032:
983:
982:
971:Boris Tsirelson
950:Boris Tsirelson
915:Sylvain Ribault
892:Boris Tsirelson
874:Sylvain Ribault
859:Boris Tsirelson
844:Boris Tsirelson
840:
824:Boris Tsirelson
809:Boris Tsirelson
797:
760:Boris Tsirelson
732:
716:Boris Tsirelson
693:
677:Boris Tsirelson
650:
627:
624:
622:Category theory
606:Boris Tsirelson
592:Boris Tsirelson
579:
574:
569:
525:Boris Tsirelson
501:
499:Hierarchy Image
468:Boris Tsirelson
432:Boris Tsirelson
376:Boris Tsirelson
352:
349:
311:
276:
270:Boris Tsirelson
268:
249:
202:
199:
196:
193:
192:
170:
163:
143:
115:
112:
109:
106:
105:
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
1041:
1039:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1020:
1015:
1010:
1005:
1000:
995:
985:
984:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
905:
904:
903:
902:
885:
884:
839:
838:Figure numbers
836:
835:
834:
796:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
771:
770:
731:
728:
727:
726:
692:
689:
688:
687:
649:
646:
623:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
602:
578:
575:
573:
570:
568:
565:
536:
535:
500:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
483:222.154.73.162
449:
448:
447:
446:
427:
426:
422:
421:
416:
415:
410:
409:
405:
404:
399:
398:
393:
392:
387:
386:
348:
345:
342:
341:
247:
235:
234:
231:
230:
227:
226:
215:
209:
208:
206:
189:the discussion
176:
175:
159:
147:
146:
138:
126:
125:
122:
121:
119:
92:
80:
79:
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1040:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1019:
1016:
1014:
1011:
1009:
1006:
1004:
1001:
999:
996:
994:
991:
990:
988:
981:
980:
976:
972:
959:
955:
951:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
924:
920:
916:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
901:
897:
893:
889:
888:
887:
886:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
854:
853:
849:
845:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
794:
787:
783:
779:
775:
774:
773:
772:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
748:
747:
746:
742:
738:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
673:
672:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
647:
645:
643:
639:
635:
634:141.35.15.251
631:
621:
615:
611:
607:
603:
601:
597:
593:
588:
587:
585:
581:
580:
576:
572:Zoo of spaces
571:
566:
564:
563:
559:
555:
550:
549:
545:
541:
534:
530:
526:
521:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
507:
498:
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
453:202.36.179.66
443:
442:
441:
437:
433:
429:
428:
424:
423:
418:
417:
412:
411:
407:
406:
401:
400:
395:
394:
389:
388:
385:
381:
377:
372:
371:
370:
368:
364:
360:
359:202.36.179.66
356:
347:"Differences"
346:
338:
334:
328:
322:
316:
308:
305:
301:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
275:
271:
265:
261:
258:for external
257:
253:
248:
245:
241:
240:
224:
220:
219:High-priority
214:
211:
210:
207:
190:
186:
182:
181:
173:
167:
162:
160:
157:
153:
152:
148:
144:High‑priority
142:
139:
136:
132:
120:
103:
102:
97:
93:
90:
86:
85:
81:
76:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
968:
855:
841:
798:
733:
694:
658:Vector space
651:
625:
583:
551:
537:
502:
450:
350:
333:CC BY-SA-3.0
315:cite journal
284:
280:
255:
218:
178:
99:
51:WikiProjects
34:
778:Mark viking
737:Mark viking
701:Incnis Mrsi
628:—Preceding
353:—Preceding
260:peer review
194:Mathematics
185:mathematics
141:Mathematics
987:Categories
795:Red links
584:underlies
509:LokiClock
335:license (
307:Q55120290
300:2470-6345
252:submitted
39:is rated
913:others.
691:Subspace
630:unsigned
540:Bruno321
355:unsigned
304:Wikidata
287:(1): 2.
101:inactive
75:inactive
221:on the
41:C-class
47:scale.
662:Aqwis
277:(PDF)
28:This
975:talk
954:talk
919:talk
896:talk
878:talk
863:talk
848:talk
828:talk
813:talk
782:talk
764:talk
752:Ozob
741:talk
720:talk
705:talk
681:talk
666:talk
638:talk
610:talk
596:talk
558:talk
544:talk
529:talk
513:talk
487:talk
472:talk
457:talk
436:talk
380:talk
363:talk
337:2018
321:link
297:ISSN
213:High
807:"?
289:doi
254:to
989::
977:)
956:)
921:)
898:)
880:)
865:)
850:)
830:)
815:)
784:)
766:)
743:)
735:--
722:)
707:)
683:)
668:)
640:)
612:)
598:)
560:)
546:)
531:)
515:)
489:)
474:)
459:)
438:)
382:)
365:)
339:).
317:}}
313:{{
302:.
295:.
283:.
279:.
973:(
952:(
917:(
894:(
876:(
861:(
846:(
826:(
811:(
788:!
780:(
762:(
739:(
718:(
703:(
679:(
664:(
636:(
608:(
594:(
556:(
542:(
527:(
511:(
485:(
470:(
455:(
434:(
378:(
361:(
323:)
309:.
291::
285:1
225:.
104:.
77:)
73:(
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
