Talk:Symmetry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics. | ||||
| Mathematics grading: | NA Class | Top Importance | Field: Geometry and topology | ||
| This article needs its mathematical content moving to Symmetry in mathematics, apart from a brief overview. Tompw 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||||
[edit] Miscellaneous Talk Items
I couldn't find any examples of Persian Pottery other than an image from the Met; I created a degraded version but I will follow up with an eMail to the curator of that department to obtain copyrgight clearance or an opinion on fair use. Here's what I sent:
- web.site@metmuseum.org
- education@metmuseum.org
- Hello,
- I volunteered my efforts on a section of the WikiPedia about symmetry in art (see: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry>); for one of the sections (Pottery) I would like to use an image from your Islamic collection. I resized and degraded its quality to better fit the fast-loading requirements of the WikiPedia, and I linked to the Met as a reference. As the WikiPedia is for educational purposes, I thought this would both benefit the Met and the visitors at this online encyclopedia. Please let me know if you have any concerns.
-- Jeff
I don't think you can say "Symmetry is a characteristic of geometrical shapes, equations and other objects;" and then go on to say "In reality however, ... composed of matter ... Symmetry therefore, is a matter of similarity instead of sameness." Unless with "and other objects", you refer to material bodies. But that wouldn't be correct, because the large material bodies to which the article refers have inherently irregular, asymmetric shapes.
certainly, if you rotate a circle around its center, you get the same circle.
-- Enrique
The Sydney Opera House is an example of symmetry in architecture?? I defy anyone to find a less symmetrical building! --dmmaus 06:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
--4.249.99.91 00:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
"In formal terms, we say that an object is symmetric with respect to a given mathematical operation, if, when applied to the object, this operation does not change the object or its appearance. Two objects are symmetric to each other with respect to a given group of operations if one is obtained from the other by some of the operations"
This paragraph should be altered to make the change.
"In formal terms, we say that an object is symmetric with respect to the set as long as this is the abstract example symmetry. A class unassigned as object to the set then relates abstractly. An element of Aristotle's category applied. In mathematical terms the formal, group then caususally operates. Symmetry is held operation's cause to exist."
So in third relative set I have formulated the correct version ammenable to Aristotle's category where applied transform of category appears the symmetric form.
A cause to operate is the relation applied. Making the abstract subject appear to cause. So the operation is held to symmetrically exist with relation to all element of the appl..
And I need real philosopher help here. I get lost, but it is exquisitly deep as topic.
"[edit] Symmetry in logic A dyadic relation R is symmetric if and only if, whenever it's true that Rab, it's true that Rba. Thus, “is the same age as” is symmetrical, for if Paul is the same age as Mary, then Mary is the same age as Paul.
Symmetric binary logical connectives are "and" (∧, , or &), "or" (∨), "biconditional" (iff) (↔), NAND ("not-and"), XOR ("not-biconditional"), and NOR ("not-or")."
The logic above must be altered in this fashion.
"Any relation as "is the same age as" appears the symmetry of any function of dyadic term."
This is the nontrivial change necessary to your wiki!!! Please consider it seriously.
It solves the True Scotsman fallacy.
--207.69.137.6 00:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
