Talk:Equidistant
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 25 July 2011. The result of the discussion was soft-redirect to Wiktionary wikt:equidistant. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 3 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by Michael Hardy (talk · contribs) on 30 July 2011. It was contested by Maethordaer (talk · contribs) on 2011-08-02 |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Draft outline edit
Here is a draft outline for a non trivial stub.--Salix (talk): 22:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. I'll try to add a few references.TR 09:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- The closing admin said it was OK to go ahead and create it [1]. So I have done so. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#deletion of equidistant.--Salix (talk): 13:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Draft edit
A point is said to be equidistant to a set of objects if the distances between that point and each object are equal.[1]
In two dimensions the locus of points equidistant between two given (different) points is their perpendicular bisector. This result can be generalised to three dimension where to locus of equidistant points form a plane.
For a triangle the circumcentre is a point equidistant from each of the three end points. Every non degenerate triangle has such a point. This result can be generalised to cyclic polygons. The center of a circle is equidistant to every point on the circle. Likewise the center of a sphere is equidistant to every point on the sphere.
In shape analysis, the topological skeleton or medial axis of a shape is a thin version of that shape that is equidistant to its boundaries.
References edit
- ^ Clapham, Christopher; Nicholson (2009). The concise Oxford dictionary of mathematics. Oxford University Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 9780199235940.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|frist2=ignored (help)
{{geometry-stub}}
Requested move edit
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Equidistant → Equidistance – Procedural nomination; transferred from WP:RfD. Summary rationale by SimonTrew: "I suggest now a reversal of the redirect: Under WP:NOUN (a subsec of WP:TITLE) we prefer nouns as titles, and Equidistant is an adjective". Full background at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 16#Equidistance. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Fascinating that an article that has had such a traumatic history could become such a good stub. Well done to the rescuers, and it must prove something, dunno exactly what. Andrewa (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I thought about trying to rewrite the first sentence to use Equidistance and basically failed. In mathematics it is a property of sets of points rather than an object in its own right. If someone with better grammatical dexterity would care to have a go I could be convinced otherwise.--Salix (talk): 21:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:NOUN says Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles. It does not say that nouns must always be used. I think this page merits an exception to the general rule: the use of "equidistance" as a noun is extremely rare. Jowa fan (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I added a note at WT:WikiProject Mathematics#deletion_of_equidistant referring to here, so that I hope I do not seem to be subverting others' views. It seems that others already spotted it anyway! I can see both sideds of both sides so have no strong view of this, hence listed genuinely for discussion. I think, on the whole, the mathematicians should have the final say (with a slight caveat, is it a mathematical term or is it in general English usage, that is where I waver.) Si Trew (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify, when I said the mathematicians should have the final say, that was not meant patronising though I see it could seem so, but rather, if it is a technical mathematical term, those at WikProject Mathematics are best to discuss (and perhaps User:Thryduulf's support at the latest RfD should be taken into account too, which would make it two supports and two opposes). Not that we are sitting here counting votes of course, and I have myself kinda "abstained" so could fall either side of the fence; but just saying that my opinion as "not a mathematician" is to say, what would people be more likely to search for? But it is perhaps a sledgehammer to kill a gnat anyway, since we are just reversing a redirect, and I am rather persuaded by Salix' statement that he tried to write it as equidistance and failed. So I will put a definition below, but I am coming around to the point that as it is, it is far more concise and says what it means wheras with equidistance one has to jump through syntactical hoops and put it in the passive:
- Equidistance is the property of a point that is has the same distance from all other objects in the universe of discourse.
How is File:Skel.png relevant? edit
I can't tell how this is related to the topic...-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)