Talk:Elegance

Nicely done
They call this a stub, but I think it's nicely done. It would be hard to expand on this without making it a laundry list of things that touch on Elegance but are not elegance in and of themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.33.48 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Its says all that needs to be said, in a simple, effective way. It's really..um, what's the word... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.186.169 (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to take the time to comment on how elgantly written the article is, and unsurprisingly I'm not the only one.--86.28.221.143 (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I heard an elegant explanation of elegance that might fit in this article, "Something is elegant when no part of it can be changed without making it worse."J P M7791 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be a definition of perfection, not elegance. 71.199.190.190 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

isomorphism???
Quote, in section: General concept: "Different applications of the term are not fully isomorphic in the sense described by Douglas Hofstadter as follows: “The word ‘isomorphism’ applies when two complex structures can be mapped onto each other,..." There are ten different meanings given for isomorphism, this specific, (often) contradictory one is likely to induce confusion in those who 1) use a different definition, or 2) are utterly unfamiliar with that jargon. It's distracting, and may read like gibberish. ...and it's extraneous, not needed, inelegant. While this might have relevance below, it hardly belongs under General concept. --69.110.89.115 (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I concur. This article is an absolute disaster, and fails to capture the essence of elegance altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.19.133 (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Right? Is this a joke? 73.41.82.251 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright review.
In my opinion, the addition in this edit, while referenced, is too close to the source. I've removed it. If someone feels the concept is worth including, please feel free, but ensure it is in your own words. possible source-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Diagram slightly suspect


(Edited to show thumbnail of image off to the side.)

It's an old sport to make up proofs of non-conservation of area by showing two assemblies where some quantity is not actually conserved, because one of the diagrams misleads.

It you apply that skeptical eye to this diagram (which is correct), the long side of E has to equal the blunt side of A in the large square, because these sides are glued together in the medium square.

Unfortunately, in this critical respect, the supplied diagram is a few pixels off true, which—when combined with a possible visual illusion—really doesn't make this appear visually true of the large square (that a line constructed on the large square between exterior points AD and AE CE is parallel to the long side of triangle B). &mdash; MaxEnt 16:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)