Definition talk:Inversion Mapping/Topology

No, don't delete it. Transclude it. --prime mover (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I simply do not understand why we need two pages for utterly identical things. --Dfeuer (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Your understanding of the philosophy of this site is weak. --prime mover (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm actually with Dfeuer. Why would we want to insist on two pages with the same thing? In general I like to think I grasp the site philosophy, but this point eludes me. If there were but a trivial difference, I could justify it, but in this case it'd only cause plain confusion IMO. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The way I see it is a difference in context. When you are working on group theory, you are interested only in the inversion mapping as it applies to straightforward groups, unadorned with any extra structure, and as such that's all you want. Now when you are working in topological groups, you will be concerned about the effect of such a mapping on that extra structure.


 * As it stands, the pages are different (and IMO significantly different) in their "also see" sections. You do not want a link to Inversion Mapping on Topological Group is Homeomorphism from Definition:Inversion Mapping, for a start - it introduces an irrelevance, which may be significant from the point of view of a automatic site-parsing mechanism, which in due course is practically an inevitability. --prime mover (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But then in due time all the Also sees will be replaced by a link to a category. I'm not really craving for having to merge all the pages back at that point. Not that I don't get your point (I do now) but I'd be happy to have said link on the general page for now, and then put up a category whenever that becomes appropriate (~10 results is usually enough). &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ... but then the link for the category for Definition:Inversion Mapping (Topology) will be different from that for Definition:Inversion Mapping. There will also be a different source citation process flow for each of these pages (once we get round to citing the sources from which the definitions on these pages comes from, of course).


 * This is how it's been done in the past (witness various assorted statements for preservation of abstract algebraical concepts under homomorphisms of various types in the contexts of a range of objects: semigroups, monoids, groups etc). --prime mover (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine, then. Anyway, it's unlikely that I'll contribute to this area very much beyond the basic stuff that I think off on-the-fly. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Another point which is I believe valid is that the concept of inversion mapping is rarely encountered in conventional group theory from the point of view of pure abstract algebraical concepts, beyond some texts which acknowledge its existence via a small digression. However, in the field of topological groups it is more important, so its definition in that specific context makes considerable sense. --prime mover (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)