Talk:Monge patch
This page has issues
[edit]Dyspophyr: several issues:
- Please explain to me and the original creator of the redirect Fgnievinski why you just went ahead and overwrote his redirect without first proposing this for discussion.
- The sources are incorrectly formatted.
- Beyond being a gentler introduction, I don't see what this adds.
- There is a major disconnect between this page (and perhaps the earlier one) with surface roughness. For an encyclopedia connections matter.
Ldm1954 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- The reprimand is not warranted. Boldness is welcome on Wikipedia! This article is very well sourced and expands on the description given in a crowded article (Differential geometry of surfaces). Also, the original definition of Monge patch is convoluted with the definition of a regular surface, using a table heading instead of regular prose and formulas. And the three set intersection conditions on the definition are obscure for non-math majors. If anything needs to be changed, it's in splitting Regular surface rather than merging the present article. If only the WP:MATH folks were not so beligerant. fgnievinski (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I was not reprimanding, beyond the obvious incorrect sourcing format, the lack of explanation, and the weakness of a good connection to roughness which is a fundamental physical property. For instance, being devils advocate, is this useful for quantifying how smooth a surface needs to be in a semiconductor fab, mirror finishes, in tribology or is it just math? There are a couple of minor refs but no encyclopedic information and I don't think they are the most widely cited works on roughness and related physics/mechanics/materials science. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- The big problem I perceive is that the article surface roughness is very weak: it only presents engineering standards plus some earth science, but does not explain statistical descriptions nor survey physical models. If that article were up to encyclopedic standards, then it would, among many other things, mention the Monge gauge and link here. -- Dyspophyr (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that does not excuse incorrect source formatting. I continue to think that adding a few paragraphs would help move this from an extended math description, which IMHO it currently is, to an informative encyclopedic article. Connections to surface engineering, surface metrology, asperity (materials science) should not be too hard to make. While these don't go deep into analyses at the level of, for instance, Bo Persson's contact mechanics or that of others, there is no reason not to make the connections. And, of course, improve the other articles. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- The big problem I perceive is that the article surface roughness is very weak: it only presents engineering standards plus some earth science, but does not explain statistical descriptions nor survey physical models. If that article were up to encyclopedic standards, then it would, among many other things, mention the Monge gauge and link here. -- Dyspophyr (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I was not reprimanding, beyond the obvious incorrect sourcing format, the lack of explanation, and the weakness of a good connection to roughness which is a fundamental physical property. For instance, being devils advocate, is this useful for quantifying how smooth a surface needs to be in a semiconductor fab, mirror finishes, in tribology or is it just math? There are a couple of minor refs but no encyclopedic information and I don't think they are the most widely cited works on roughness and related physics/mechanics/materials science. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)