Talk:Isomorphism (disambiguation)

Nontechnical use of isomorphic

I have (re-)added a general usage form of isomorphism which a) I don't think warrants its own Wikipedia article, but which b) I think will often be the meaning that a reader may be seeking. I'm thinking particularly of a non-native English speaker who encounters the term in a technical document, e.g. in software engineering, where data relationships are often described using the term isomorphic. Perhaps an isomorphism (computer science) article is needed, but I think the term is used in this general sense in other areas as well. I don't know whether this is an appropriate use of a disambiguation page, but the change seems understandable. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Trevor Hanson 19:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig pages are, however, navigation aids to get users to actual articles. They are not lists of defintions (that is what wiktionary is for). If the term is article-worthy, then we can make an article (even a stub for now) and add a link on this page. But if not, it should not be mentioned in this disambig page (specifically the guideline at WP:DAB#Dictionary_definitions, but in general WP:DAB and MOS:DAB) - grubber 19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I see that was a bad idea. :) This form of isomorphism belongs either in its own Wikipedia article or in Wiktionary. I'll think about what would make the most sense. (From the standpoint of a Wikipedia user, a disambiguation page does seem like a logical place to find general usage information; but I do see that this would lead to problems, as substantive material would inevitably migrate into them. So the guidelines are correct.) Thanks for correcting my misstep, and so promptly. Trevor Hanson 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm a member of a couple wikiprojects dedicated to making the disambig pages more consistent, so it's one of my "hobbies". :) I see you've created a new article, and I think that was a great solution to this issue. - grubber 22:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have subsequently looked at your input to this large topic. As usual, I see that most of the things I'm likely to say on the subject have already been addressed from seventeen different angles. (I had missed your earlier edit to the isomorphism disambig page where you had removed the text definition; had I read that first, of course, I would not have made my later change. Fortunately, you apparently managed to snag my update within moments of my posting it.) I must wonder whether, in thirty years, we will see that Wikipedia and Wiktionary have merged. I have always felt that the distinction between dictionary and encyclopaedia is an arbitrary one, particularly given the hypertext model of information access. Intuitively, to me at least, a disambiguation page is really playing the role of a master dictionary entry, and should thus logically pull together links for definition, etymology, history, usage, and of course disambiguated links to substantive articles. But not today. :) Trevor Hanson 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a black and white issue, for sure. I help maintain James, for example. Does etymology and translations into other languages belong there? I think it's legitimate information and I can't think of anywhere else to put it. And, check out MC (disambiguation); there's way too much information on that page, but I really don't have the energy to dive into it! I mean: Mc as a name prefix (ie McDonald) doesn't have an article, but I don't feel justified in removing it either. Ugh. Disambig pages can be fun and challenging some days! Isomorphism (disambiguation) was easy tho :) - grubber 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it's legitimate information and I can't think of anywhere else to put it." And that's exactly the rub. When we encounter these situations, and we often do, it means we haven't quite got the model right. Eventually, the tweakage process will address such needs, and there will be "a place for everything and everything in its place." Of course, we've already come so far.... Trevor Hanson 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a mapping that preserves the structure

this wording seems misleading to me; i would a call "a mapping that preserves the structure" a *homomorphism*, not an isomorphism. - 80.143.112.207 11:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice point, but a homomorphism preserves structure in a possibly-lossy way. An isomorphism preserves all of the structure of the object. It's subtle, and maybe the article is not precise enough? - grubber 17:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

use in geology

the term is used in describing a type of similarity between two minerals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.70.204 (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]