Talk:Analytic geometry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Analytic geometry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Top‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Top This article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

The relationship between algebra and geometry is nontrivial. There exist proofs of this relationship based on the theory of geometry and notions of geometric length. What does this mean? Richard Pinch 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've changed it to what I assume it meant. A mildly interesting point for our wonkish bretheren: can this metatheorem that everyone knows be given an accessible reference? Charles Matthews 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems non-trivial. Euclidean geometry is consistent, yet the same cannot be said of arithmetic. Tarski's work comes to mind. So how do you quickly show that analytic geometry doesn't let you talk about the integers or rationals? Analytic geometry is routine and algorithmically decidable via Grobner bases, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcfreely (talk • contribs) 02:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Deleting previous comment.) How silly of me. Of course, the metatheorem that Euclidean geometry = analytic geometry is proven somewhere in the course of Tarski's proof that Euclidean geometry is decidable. The key steps are to show that Tarski's axioms are interpretable in the theory of real closed fields and that there exists a decision-procedure for the latter via quantifier elimination. To clarify, Grobner bases provide more efficient algorithms for the second step. An immediate consequence is that elementary geometry is routine. Amcfreely 03:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The line is true but has nothing to do here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.166 (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article has Too little info on the modern and advanced meaning. Maybe this article should be renamed Analytic geometry(classical meaning) and a new article should be created Analytic geometry(modern and advanced meaning) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.141 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I really can not see an advantage to having words on the tin that don't match what is in the tin. An article entitled "Analytic Geometry" should be about the modern subject of analytic geometry. A separate article entitled "Co-ordinate Geometry" should be about, well how about, co-ordinate geometry. Surely it would be obtuse to have it any other way, especially as this is an encyclopedia with an object of clarifying material. FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot of implicit mention of algebraic geometric concepts such as algebraic curves. To my knowledge analytic geometry is simply the study of coordinate systems. Perhaps this should be fixed. 67.252.103.23 (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Am I missing something extremely obvious, or is the very first illustration in this article (the one captioned "Cartesian coordinates") missing some negative signs? 2604:2000:EFC0:2:6101:CCF:CD4B:8D4E (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is missing negative signs. This illustration has been defective since Jan. 2015 and the creator of the diagram was aware of this as it is mentioned on the file page for this illustration. It probably should be removed. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

It has now been replaced (not by me) with a correct illustration. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Analytisk geometri and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Analytisk geometri until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply