Talk:Rose (topology)

Wedge sum/product

I would say that the bouquet is a special case of the wedge sum, not of the wedge product, as it is mentioned in the current version of the entry. (I'm not familiar with the latter, so I haven't made any changes.) --Kompik 12:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. linas 15:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian earring

I believe that if you're defining a bouquet of circles to be their wedge sum, then the bouquet of infinitely many circles isn't the Hawaiian earring; isn't it instead a CW complex with one vertex and countably infinitely many 1-cells? This space does, in fact, have fundamental group which is free on countably infinitely many generators. BarrySimington 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. I have removed the incorrect statements. Jim 04:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article still says the space is similar to the Hawaiian earring -- is this useful? Could it be made more precise? As of now, it just seems a bit misleading, even with the qualification about not being homeomorphic spaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.137.70 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it a bit more precise. It's definitely worth mentioning the Hawaiian earring here in order to point out that it's not a bouquet of circles, since it can easily be mistaken for one. --Zundark (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision

I've done some major work on this article, and I moved it from bouquet of circles to rose (mathematics). Google Scholar lists 381 results for ("free group" bouquet) and 574 results for ("free group" rose), which is roughly consistent with my experience.

In the long run, there ought to be an article on the Nielsen-Schreier Theorem and an expanded article on Out(F_n) that make use of the material here. Jim 07:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]