Talk:Arrangement of lines

Arrangement of lines is currently a Mathematics and mathematicians good article nominee. Nominated by —David Eppstein (talk) at 02:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Short description: Subdivision of the plane by lines

Configurations[edit]

What is the relationship between an arrangement of lines and a projective configuration? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to add a brief explanation to both articles, and cross-link. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arrangement of lines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://biogeometry.duke.edu/pubs-pankaj/surveys/arrangement-survey.ps.gz
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101104182509/http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~tmchan/lev2d_7_7_99.ps.gz to http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~tmchan/lev2d_7_7_99.ps.gz

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arrangement of lines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629133358/http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/christt/line_arrangements.php to http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/christt/line_arrangements.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition section[edit]

The article looks very well done, as might be expected from an editor who has published in the field. Unfortunately, I don't have time at present to give a good review. But on the definition section,

It seems light on citations--none for the definition itself?
There could be more explanation of concepts and/or wikilinks. Perhaps a digram to illustrate the concepts?
As an intro section, the definition section uses fairly high-level concepts that may baffle readers coming from a high-school geometry understanding of the topic. For instance, they might wonder what is an unbounded convex polygon, and if they make the association of that with what you are talking about, how is a wedge of the plane going off to infinity even considered a polygon?

Building a pedagogical transition from an elementary-looking problem to state-of the art understanding is often difficult, but the intro section could benefit from a bit more of an on-ramp. {{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire first paragraph, and its embedded three bullet points, have a single source, because that source was adequate for those definitions. If you think^[1] that^[1] adding^[1] lots^[1] of fnords^[1] would give readers^[1] warm^[1] fuzzy^[1] feelings^[1] then^[1] I suppose^[1] we could repeat^[1] that one footnote^[1] multiple^[1] times.^[1] —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]