Definition talk:Dimension (Topology)
I stumbled across this page when reflecting the discussion here. While I think that the name Definition:Dimension (Topology) is somewhat ambiguous and I am not quite convinced there is a need for this page as it is implicitly defined here, I will define it here and whoever else stumbles across this page can transform it in a referral page to Definition:Locally Euclidean Space when needed. --Geometry dude (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- What is the nature of this ambiguity? Is it that "dimension" can be used to apply to something else topological apart from a Locally Euclidean Space? In which case, name it "Dimension of Locally Euclidean Space" or (better) set up "Dimension (Topology)/Locally Euclidean Space" as a subpage of "Dimension (Topology)". There are plenty of pages in this site that use a similar paradigm -- recommend you might want to browse.
- "I am not quite convinced there is a need for this page" -- Please try and put such misgivings behind you, and immerse yoruself in the philosophy of this site. As I have said, the structural paradigm is absolutely and non-negotiably inflexible. --prime mover (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, alright, I agree. Space is cheap, it's not too bad to have two pages essentially describing the same concept. Is it alright like it is now? I am not very familiar with the other two concepts but those are the ones I know that should go here. I am not going to define them though. --Geometry dude (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is exactly how I envisage it. This paradigm works really well because you can instantly compare and contrast the various usages. Only works for variants of the same concept -- for widely different usages of the same term, the disambiguation page is of course used. --prime mover (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)