Talk:Congruence relation

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Correct Symbols?

I'm reading through this article and instead of seeing ≅ as the symbol for congruence everyone has used ≡ or ~ I have only ever seen these symbols in logic and believed ≡ to translate more closely to "if and only if" while ~ means "not" correct me if I'm wrong, but should every ≡ in this article be replaced by ≅ when we're walking about maths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enix150 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

isometry

@Anita5192: why can't there be a geometric flavour to a congruence relation (eg: over a vector space)? would it be incumbent upon me to (VERY VERY rigorously) demonstrate that first? i'm not saying it's easy, just curious. ty in advance 174.3.155.181 (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, for instance, a complex torus is a geometric object that can be seen as the quotient of the plane by a congruence relation (on the additive group of the plane) in the sense described here. But I think you misunderstand the point of Wikipedia. We aim to describe known and standard pieces of mathematics, not to explore what might be; see WP:NOR. That sort of exploration is of course a worthwhile activity, but better done elsewhere. You might get a better response at http://math.stackexchange.com/ . —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi @David Eppstein:, i get what you're saying man. however, i wasn't actually trying to suggest that original research is worthy of a wikilink in the 'see also'. rather, given that i am not a bonafide expert in the area, i was giving an instance that i felt was general enough such that there would exist some research that falls underneath it demonstrating the point i was trying to make. the complex torus is one such situation, no? i thought it shared enough similarity to be included in the 'see also'. do you disagree? thank you for your participation 174.3.155.181 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit: i just realised that Theorema Egregium already links to isometry so i realise i should be happy with that (to say the least!!). i am therefore with whichever way you decide, mr eppstein. i shouldn't hoard all the curiosity ;) 174.3.155.181 (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be a valid RFC. I'm removing the RFC tag. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 03:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linear congruences

AntonioC Seguro inserted a section "Linear congruences" on 21 May, Anita5192 subsequently made a clean-up edit. I intended to revert both edits, since I believe solving linear congruences is a better place for this section, and added a hatnote stating the latter.

However, I unfortunately reverted only Anita5192's clean-up edit - sorry for the confusion!

Now that I have created it, I feel it is necessary to discuss my original intention (deleting the section completely; its contents, including the cited source, is already present at solving linear congruences) here. Is there any objection to that? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, I added in both articles knowing that it could be wrong, but I didnt know for sure and wanted to make a tiny review and then a more concise article.

Greetings, Antonio. AntonioC Seguro (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was about to delete it myself for the same reason, but I decided to clean it up instead. I do not object to removing it now.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done I deleted the section. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]