Talk:Locus (mathematics)

For example, a line is the locus of points equidistant from two fixed points. ? --Abdull 17:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Doctormatt 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would think that would form a plane, at least in 3 dimensional space 14:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes: in 2D, a line; in 3D a plane. -- Doctormatt 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition issue

There appears to be two definitions of locus floating about.

One talks about the locus of a point: It seems to imply that the locus of a point is the path taken by the point when it moves in some (usually constrained) manner.

The other (in this article) says that a locus is a set of points. Specifically, that set of all possible points that satisfy the constraint.

While the outcome may similar, so these seem very different to me, at least in a strict mathematical sense. To a novice first seeing this, the two models will seem quite different. In the first we think of a point moving about, and it's locus is an attribute of that one point. In the other we must start by explaining that the plane is composed of an infinity of points packed into a sheet. The locus then somehow selects the candidate set of points that satisfy the criteria and chucks the rest.

Which one? I prefer the locus of a single point, but I wonder what others think?

I think the two ideas are the same, though I don't know where you are seeing this "locus of a point" usage, so maybe you could point out instances of those. The locus of a point is the set of points that make up the path determined by the movement of the point. That is, the condition (or constraint) is that the points must be part of the path. Since a path is a set of points, there is no reason for confusion. (p.s. remember to sign your comments with four tildes) Doctormatt 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just do a Google search on "locus of a point". Here is one hit: [1] but there are many more. I do think the outcome is largely the same, but I wonder if there is one model more accepted than the rest. John.d.page 06:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the set definition of a locus, as the path definition can be obtained from it by simply parameterizing the set. See the parametric equation wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.103.18 (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?

I believe that this article is a stub. AkvoD3 (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-done

Parts of the article are over-doing the alleged merits of set theory.

The grammar is also odd.

Hatnote

An IP user insists for removing "(disambiguation)" from the "other uses" field of the hatnote. This is against MOS:HATNOTE, where all examples of "other uses" display "(disambiguation)". This is also against the primary use of a hatnote, which is helping readers to find the article they want as easily as possible. If "(disambiguation)" is omitted, the reader has to think that, because of the plural of "other uses", the target article should be a disambiguation page. This reasoning may be difficult for a reader who is not accustomed with Wikipedia. Also, "(disambiguation)" appears explicitly after "other uses" in all whatnots that I have ever seen. Therefore having a specific style for this particular article may be confusing for some readers. Thus it is much better to be clear that the target is a dab page, and I will restore "(disambiguation)" again. D.Lazard (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Geometrisk ort" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Geometrisk ort and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Geometrisk ort until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]