Talk:Computational geometry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is my version of a long stub. Someone else should fill in the details, I'm not a specialist. Loisel 00:38 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Books added

hello- I just added four references for books on the topic. two points to note.

    • One, I'm not sure that the last book by O'Rourke belongs there, as it's the only non general book on the topic, still, I found it very useful to my understanding of computational geometry
    • Two, Maybe we could list title's ISBNs and compress authorship a bit somehow? I'm not sure about citation conventions, if someone wants to fix it up, that would be great

If someone disagrees, and feels such information doesn't have a place here ( it goes go out of date quickly) -- by all means, pull it out, but it's handy to point readers to more external sources of information, IMHO.

      • Also -- more external website links would be useful, if anyone is so inclined.

  • O'Rourke's book is a good general reference if you remove all the code; it should stay, IMO.
  • I put the references in a more academic style and wikified them. See Wikipedia:Cite_sources for a reference on these BibTeX-style citations. In my opinion, one shouldn't go to great lengths to keep a citation short -- I see thorough citation as an essential part of any academic community, although exceptions must be made. I say that having cited cell biology papers with > 50 authors. groan!
  • Godfried Toussaint's webpage has some decent-to-good Java tutorials on various problems that he has students do for projects. I won't put a link to it because (a) I don't know how much interest there would be and (b) he was my prof, so there's a bit of bias, but if someone else thinks it should be linked, by all means put it up!

Adking80 22:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

  • Oppose. to merge List of books in computational geometry here. It is not a simple bibliography. It is a list with annotations. We have quite a few separate lists of books. It makes sense to merge articles accidentally started by several people on the same topic or to merge some unimportant issues that do not really warrant a separate article. Keeping the dicussed pages separately does not hinder understanding of the main topic in any way: the list is just one click away. The supporters of merging may look at it in this way: the "list of books" page is a merge of several separate small articles for individual books. I hope it will make you feel better. `'mikka 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)