Manifold is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
November 18, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 31, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
B Class
Top Importance
 Field:  Geometry
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
A selected article on the Mathematics Portal.


Impressed with this articleEdit

Since I usually nitpick on discussion pages, I just wanted to say that this article is very coherently constructed, provides good examples, and covers the topic well for a wide range of readers. Thank you to all who contributed to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:36, 2006 November 12.


The article states: Two atlases are said to be equivalent if their union is also an atlas. I cannot imagine what it means. In the first place is according to the definition of an atlas any extension of an atlas with a chart again an atlas. And couldn't it be the case that compatibility is meant? So, something is missing here. Madyno (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In the smooth category, the union of two atlases need not be an atlas, since nothing forces the composite   to be smooth if   and   are just homeomorphisms that define different smooth structures. However, in the topological category, any two atlases are equivalent. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, it means that if two atlases both describe the same topological manifold then their union - the bound volume of both sets of charts - will also be an atlas for that manifold. Perhaps I am being too simple-minded? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Correct. But also the union of two topological atlases will always be a topological atlas, because the composite of homeomorphisms is a homeomorphism. So the definition of equivalence is fairly vacuous in the topological case. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, nothing in the definitions puts a condition on the transition maps. Madyno (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

For a smooth chart, the transition maps are assumed to be smooth. (For a topological chart, the transition maps are automatically continuous, so this is not needed as an extra hypothesis.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite strange, you don't get my point. I know what you're saying. The point is, it isn't mentioned in the definitions. Madyno (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What words would you propose adding to the article, then? Perhaps that will help us to see what you mean. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
A chart is assumed to "preserve the structure". Usually though, one takes a chart as what defines the structure. For example, a differentiable manifold is a topological space covered by an atlas where the transition functions are differentiable. You can give a different atlas which is differentiable in the sense that its transition maps with itself are differentiable, but for which the transition maps with the other atlas are not. So these are not equivalent atlases. They define two different differentiable structures. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


"The surface of the Earth requires (at least) two charts to include every point"

Not true, see, for example "Mercator_projection". There's a bit more precision (or hand waving) required in this explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The Mercator projection leaves out the poles, and also fails to be continuous on one of the meridians. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Any chart on a sphere must leave out at least one point. Any single wrapping which covers it completely must introduce other discontinuities and so is not a chart. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Too technical, especially the summaryEdit

The summary of this article does not comply with wikipedia guidelines for technical articles.

Before removing the technical tag, the issue should be addressed. If an editor believes the subject matter is too technical for a simple explanation, that should be explained in the talk page first before removing the Template:Technical.

There's already a pretty simple explanation as the second paragraph. Consider expanding this and swapping with the current lead sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)
You have added a {{technical}} tag to the article with the summary "Re-added prematurely removed technical template; please discuss in talk page before removal". I have not found any recent removal of such a tag in the history of the article. Can you indicate the date of this removal?
You suggest to begin the article with something such that : "In mathematics, circles, lines and planes are manifolds, but not an eight figure...". This seems more confusing than the present lead. As the subject is intrinsically technical, it is very difficult to explain what is a manifold to someone who do not know anything in mathematics. So there were a long discussion between editors on the best way of writing the lead (see Talk:Manifold/Archive 7), and the lead results of a WP:consensus. In short, the lead is the best that the competent editors can do, and, if someone has an idea for improving it, he must discuss first on the talk page. This makes your tag irrelevant, and I'll remove it. D.Lazard (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
My anonymous comments are auto-signed by the bot. I don't have an account; I'm not sure what the benefit of the signature is; is there one?
The first technical template was reverted by D. Lazard on June 7 per the history of the article.
I realize a simplified summary would not be "100% accurate", but as it stands, it is too technical. I think the goal of the summary of the article, and the opening sentence especially, should be to communicate as best as possible and to the broadest audience possible, what the article is about. This official wikipedia guidelines set this bar at high-school level education. With the current opening sentence and summary, there is no chance for someone with a high-school education to understand what a Manifold is after reaching this article. For technical folks such as your self, they can continue reading past he laymans introduction into the deeply technical. I'm by no means a mathematician, but I have many years additional math education over highschool and this summary still goes almost entirely over my head. The reference to the circle and the line communicate the concept quickly and concisely, although I agree not with 100% accuracy. If such an example can get 50% of the population up to speed on approximately (but not exactly) what a manifold is, I think that's better than the current 0% (rounded to the nearest percent). I think sacrificing some slight bit of accuracy to help a broader audience learn about manifolds, at least in the opening sentence, is a fantastic path forward. Such a simplified description should definitely include the caveat that it's not a perfect definition and that the highly technical and more complete definition continues later. (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Manifold" page.