Talk:Riemannian geometry

message: The intro uses "one" to avoid using "you."  I'm not sure which WP:TC to use.  Advice?-- Thinboy00 talk/contribs 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just realized, first of all i'm referring to the section called "introduction," secondly are sections allowed to be called "introduction?"  That's the purpose of the area before the sections.-- Thinboy00 talk/contribs 02:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro has some issues 

message: It would be nice to get some history of the topic as well as a description of what it consists of. skeptical scientist (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I am worried about the article and very angry about the statement: "There is no easy introduction to Riemannian geometry[citation needed]. It is generally recommended[who?] that one should work in the subject for quite a while to build some geometric intuition, usually by doing enormous amounts of calculations." What is this trying to convey? That Riemannian geometry is about calculating stuff? I feel that this is not the case. Calculations are done to build up an understanding and it is certainly not true that all Riemannian geometers do is calculate. --PST 09:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article is very badly written but, to me, the biggest problem is the overwhelming amount of jargon and failure to explain things in plain English rather than any factual errors.Newzild (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Passing by to agree with Newzild and say that a full rewriting is needed. I have engineering degrees and I can't understand the introductory jargon. Since this is an encyclopedia, I expected something along the lines of "Riemann is one of the geometries that apply to space, not only to the plane as the traditional, Euclidean geometry". After saying the basics, I guess it's ok to mention that it is a "branch of differential geometry", "inner product on the tangent space", but most people have no idea of what those are -- and this is not a Geometry treatise. Wikipedia has several areas filled with jargon, useless for nonspecialized people (Statistics is another example). Encyclopedias should be useful to smart but nonspecialized people. Vmkern (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

text: This list is oriented to those who already know the basic definitions and want to know what these definitions are about.
Huh?  If I knew the basic definitions, why would I want to know what they were about?  The article could at least be kind enough to state what these basic definitions actually are.  I suggest that this list be re-written so that it is oriented towards people with a less bizarre state of prior knowledge --- for instance, people who have the appropriate mathematical prerequisites to understand differential geometry, but who don't already know it.  As it is, the article isn't much good as an introduction to the topic.  82.22.96.82 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very badly written 

message: "In particular, if M has strictly positive curvature everywhere, then it is diffeomorphic to Rn. G. Perelman in 1994 gave an astonishingly elegant/short proof of the Soul Conjecture: M is diffeomorphic to Rn if it has positive curvature at only one point."
Shouldn't it say "positive curvature at any one point"? ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soul theorem error 

message: Can someone help explain how Riemannian is pronounced? Is it Ri-Men-ean or REM-ANIAN  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:425:6E86:AC5A:86C2:B125:898C (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you pronounce Riemannian 

message: The illustration, "Projecting a sphere to a plane." doesn't do that at all. At best, it projects a circular disk on one plane to a parallel surface. Drawing in the sphere does nothing.WithGLEE (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projecting a sphere to a plane