Talk:List of transforms

As you see, I divided the transforms into categories, so that people do not confuse the properties of transforms in different categories. I think this improves the page.

I am not familiar with all of the transforms, if i misplaced any, i apologize, and please fix it. Also, i grouped the transforms that i don't know into "other". If anyone knows of a proper category (or categories), please correct. -- Kevin Baas 22:29, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

--- Perhaps the Y-delta transform should be called a Y-delta transformer? It is a very interesting device, but it is not a topic in mathematics, and therefore should not be listed here. -- Kevin Baas 17:32, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is sometimes called wye-delta transformation. Nothing specifically to do with transformers; it's a standard transform used in electrical circuit theory, and widely taught in electrical engineering courses. It has mathematical content, therefore.

Charles Matthews 11:01, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I never disputed the fact that it had mathematical content. I disputed the fact that it was taught in mathematics courses, which you did not obviate. But I know nothing about the wye-delta transformation except for what's on the page. My dispute is not with the wye-delta transform itself, but with this page linking to a page with such content. For example, said page does not contatin a single mathematical formula. If it is indeed something that would be non-trivial to a mathematician, then it could benefit quite a bit from some formulas. Also, the first line should read "... is a topic in mathematics ... ", ot "In mathematics, ...". -- Kevin Baas 15:13, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You said 'not a topic in mathematics', as everyone can see. You said nothing about mathematics courses.

The deficiencies of the current y-δ page have little or nothing to do with it. A better explanation there would make it up to what I found on Google.

If you want to change the first line, go ahead. I think the current intro is fine, and is fairly standard for lists of mathematical topics. Also, I'd say the default is to leave links up unless they are obviously out of place - they can easily be taken down later if the page develops in a way that makes them look strange.

Charles Matthews 15:33, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I said "can I go to the bathroom" instead of "may I go to the bathroom". I'm sorry if that confused you. The point remains. Or did you miss it? I don't see the relevance of your comment unless you missed the point. (Or were grasping for rhetoric.)

I never said or meant to imply that the current page on the y-delta tranform contained deficiencies. I meant to say, rather, that it discusses a topic in a very substantial sense, which seems relevant to an audience, at least to those who wrote it, which are, I would imagine, those knowledgeable about it (how else could they write about it?), and thus probably the appropriate audience. It does not appear to be deficient. It appears to be targeted to what appears to be the relevant audience: electrical engineers.

Yes, ofcourse there is much that an electrical engineer needs to know about mathematics, but mathematics and electrical engineering are nonetheless two disctinct fields.

From what I read in the page, by no stretch of the imagination can I picture a pure mathematician using a y-delta transform to solve a math problem.

I am not aware of what you read in Google. I am in general not knowledgable about the topic. If the page does need to be worked on, then I think those improvements to the page need to be made by a multilateral community. Perhaps you could offer your own help and insights.

I would have taken a different course of action than you did: I would have improved the page in dispute first, before altering the link structure of other pages. Perhaps this difference in method is partially responsible for the dispute.

As you can clearly see, I have not altered the link. As a general practice, I discuss a disputable change in the talk pages before I make (or do not make) it. -- Kevin Baas 17:51, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It isn't about 'imagination', nor about what qualifies as 'pure' mathematics. That's a red herring. Electrical circuit theory (of this kind) is just one-dimensional cohomology theory, really. The transform is a combinatorial gadget. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

Charles Matthews 20:43, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Geez, you don't need to get all fussy about it. Go eat a cohomological bagel and chill out for a while. I am leaving the link there. I'm just stating that among the others in the list (and probably the majority of math lists) it fits in the least. Now whether this least is still enough, that's not for any particular individual to decide. That's for the community to decide. I am making a note of it on this talk page so that they can make their decision. Nothing to get upset or concerned about. -- Kevin Baas 18:51, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)