Talk:Dual cone and polar cone

Mathematics Start‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

the dual cone points in the wrong direction --unsigned

Well, the picture shows the polar cone, not the dual cone. I think it is right. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Convex cone?

I propose to merge this article into a section of Convex cone. At the moment, the corresponding section there is just the definition of the dual cone, without examples, properties, or illustrations, all which, I believe, should have been present there. On the other hand, this article lists the properties and has nice illustrations, but does not provide any context, and I have a hard time seeing how it can evolve into a stand-alone article. Thus the merger would be beneficial for both sides.

In the summary of his edit, Oleg commented that this is a different notion; however, I don't presently see much discussion pertaining to general sets C, besides the comment on C^** for general set C. While the properties may apply to general C, it's unclear what purpose does it serve, whether such applications are common enough to warrant a separate article.

There is definitely some potential for a general article on duality in Convex geometry, which will include, for example, polarity for polytopes (cf. Polar set, another stub-orphan), but I think that such article should be allowed to grow independently, with definitions imported if necessary, of course. This is not my area of expertise, so I will not be able to write an article on duality, but I can elaborate on my other comments if needed. Arcfrk 03:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with a merger. Some information from this article can be copied to expand the corresponding section in convex cone, but overall a merger would do no good. This article needs expansion, since it is an important concept of its own. I plan to expand it. But even now it is too big to fit into convex cone which is large by itself already. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of procedure, should there not also be a merge tag put into the other article, that is Convex cone? The editors of that article should also have a say in the matter. JRSpriggs 07:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Zfeinst introduced an incorrect (wrt to the rest of the article) definition of polar cone. He has copied over the defition of polar body, which is not a cone in general.

You are right. My bad. Zfeinst (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]