Definition talk:Fiber Bundle

From ProofWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is this page alright now (exluding the two dead links at the bottom)? --Geometry dude (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's more the thing. I've given it a tidy and left a question. Note that when a concept is specifically defined "with respect to an entity" or "on an entity" and so on, we make a point of referring to the complete definition so as to make it completely clear what is being referred to.
You might want to make a note of some of the specific tidying that's been done. In particular:
\operatorname{pr} and not \mathrm{pr} -- this is specifically because $\LaTeX$ then interprets "pr" as being an operator and performs some subtle spacing adjustment around it so as to be consistent with e.g. \sin and so on.
We tend only to use \displaystyle when it specifically has an effect on the formatting: \bigcup, \sum and so on. This is all in the house style guidelines.
Please do not use the versions of links with underscores. It limits the usefulness of global searches, for a start, and there was something else we found where it causes something else not to work so well.
One more thing: we try to limit the contents of the "Also see" section to immediately relevant stuff. At the most I'd put Fiber (Relation) and Bundle Projection in it. Oh yes, and now I know what it is, Model Fiber. Otherwise a reader trying to trace something through is likely to get sidetracked by material of only marginal relevance. --prime mover (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes okay, so a lot of those definitions refer to parts of the fiber bundle. It's a bit of a mess, I may try and sort out the best way to present it. Trouble is it's Friday again. --prime mover (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
This also regards the explaination thingy you put there. It's properly called a fiber bundle over $M$ with model fiber $F$. I'm just gonna write "a fiber bundle over M" then. --Geometry dude (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, an alternative would be to have this page with the definitions and then all the other definitions (except base point, fiber (relation) and section) could exist independently as subpages of this. Like Definition:Fiber Bundle/Base Space instead of Definition:Base Space. One could also save oneself from rewriting everything this way. The current page seems alright though, it's just if you don't like the mass of links at the end. The concept happens to be quite central to differential geometry, so there's a lot of terminology associated with it. --Geometry dude (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Leave it to me -- I prefer to handle refactoring of this kind myself; there are sometimes implications.
... how does that work for you?
Note that when referencing the subpages it is preferred to use the redirects, e.g. Definition:Base Space than the full page names, so that any work resulting from further refactoring on the full pages may be kept to a minimum. --prime mover (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It's quite nice now, well done! I will keep the advice in mind. --Geometry dude (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)