Talk:Quasicircle

Characterisation

So what is objectionable about the result of Blevins and Palka? Ansatz (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "A quasicircle may also be characterised as a Jordan curve which is set-wise invariant under a quasiconformal mapping."

That statement is false, misleading and not even remotely close to what was written in the abstract. You were unable to spot that the statement generalized well known properties of conformal transformations on the sphere that leave a given circle invariant.

Beyond that, this well trodden hoary subject is covered in numerous text books on both Teichmüller theory and complex dynamical systems. The normal process in editing mathematics articles is to use secondary sources, in this case established textbooks. I found almost no hint of that in what you wrote, only complete howlers and randomly chosen results from a vast literature.

One interesting thing about the sentence you added is the British spelling. Probably the best place to explain yourself is at the latest SPI report I filed concerning your account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The condition in the paper is that "given ordered triples z1,z2,z3 and w1,w2,w3 of points on Gamma there exists a K-quasiconformal mapping h of C bar onto itself with h(Gamma) = Gamma and h(zj) = wj for j=1,2,3" The version I gave is a simplified rendition into plain -- or at least, mathematical -- English, deliberately omitting the triple transitivity condition for simplicity. There was a full citation and a link to an online version of the original paper for anyone interested to see the exact condition. This does not seem to be a reason for removing it, and of course anyone can improve it if they wish.

Not giving the full context in the theory of conformal and quasiconformal maps is more a matter of time than competence but again anyone who sees it as a major defect is welcome to add the material themselves. Context and characterisation are not the same thing, and lack of one is not a reason to remove the other.

British English spelling is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. Ansatz (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this reply with its inadequate excuses appears to be trolling. Not even a starting graduate student in mathematics would omit a simple mathematical condition that is easy to state. (Your "simplified definition" makes any Jordan curve a quasicircle; apart from being wrong in a mathematically naive way, your edit fails WP:V). But this particular result that you decided was important is clearly WP:UNDUE. It is published in a minor journal and does not figure in the main text books on the subject, of which there are many. You are using primary sources and writng a personal essay, so WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:POV, etc. This is just one of a series of undergraduate howlers and misconceptions which plague your edits. The same was true of the edits of Julian Birdbath and A.K.Nole, whose editing various arbitrators described charitably as "mathematically naive". The best place to explain why you are editing in this extraordinary way is the SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this characterisation was given undue weight is of course a matter of opinion, and it would have been easy to say so from the beginning, without the acrimonious personal comments. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society ishardly a minor journal, though. Whether, and how, to give the gist of a piece of mathematics is a matter of style, but it is fair to say that phrases like "roughly speaking", for example, should be used to signal the difference from formal mathmatical exposition. Ansatz (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

links to this article

I've added this article to the list of circle topics, but otherwise no other articles link to it. Appropriate links from other articles should be added. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a link at Grunsky matrix but the author decided to remove it. Ansatz (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]