Talk:Congruence relation

Correct Symbols?
I'm reading through this article and instead of seeing ≅ as the symbol for congruence everyone has used ≡ or ~ I have only ever seen these symbols in logic and believed ≡ to translate more closely to "if and only if" while ~ means "not" correct me if I'm wrong, but should every ≡ in this article be replaced by ≅ when we're walking about maths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enix150 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

isometry
why can't there be a geometric flavour to a congruence relation (eg: over a vector space)? would it be incumbent upon me to (VERY VERY rigorously) demonstrate that first? i'm not saying it's easy, just curious. ty in advance 174.3.155.181 (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, for instance, a complex torus is a geometric object that can be seen as the quotient of the plane by a congruence relation (on the additive group of the plane) in the sense described here. But I think you misunderstand the point of Wikipedia. We aim to describe known and standard pieces of mathematics, not to explore what might be; see WP:NOR. That sort of exploration is of course a worthwhile activity, but better done elsewhere. You might get a better response at http://math.stackexchange.com/ . —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * hi, i get what you're saying man. however, i wasn't actually trying to suggest that original research is worthy of a wikilink in the 'see also'. rather, given that i am not a bonafide expert in the area, i was giving an instance that i felt was general enough such that there would exist some research that falls underneath it demonstrating the point i was trying to make. the complex torus is one such situation, no? i thought it shared enough similarity to be included in the 'see also'. do you disagree? thank you for your participation 174.3.155.181 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * edit: i just realised that Theorema Egregium already links to isometry so i realise i should be happy with that (to say the least!!). i am therefore with whichever way you decide, mr eppstein. i shouldn't hoard all the curiosity ;) 174.3.155.181 (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This does not seem to be a valid RFC. I'm removing the RFC tag. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 03:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Linear congruences
inserted a section "Linear congruences" on 21 May, subsequently made a clean-up edit. I intended to revert both edits, since I believe solving linear congruences is a better place for this section, and added a hatnote stating the latter.

However, I unfortunately reverted only Anita5192's clean-up edit - sorry for the confusion!

Now that I have created it, I feel it is necessary to discuss my original intention (deleting the section completely; its contents, including the cited source, is already present at solving linear congruences) here. Is there any objection to that? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course not, I added in both articles knowing that it could be wrong, but I didnt know for sure and wanted to make a tiny review and then a more concise article.


 * Greetings, Antonio. AntonioC Seguro (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was about to delete it myself for the same reason, but I decided to clean it up instead. I do not object to removing it now.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ I deleted the section. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)