Talk:Eutactic star

Cleanup Jargon?
This is a mathematical article explaining a mathematical concept with a clear mathematical explanation, appropriate for the specialism of the mathematics. Anyone who has trouble with the language used can follow any of the dozens of links to other pages, or the external links in the notes. The only term not so linked that I can see is eutactic which is explained in the first paragraph. JohnBlackburne (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a PhD in math, but I will graduate this year with a BS. This article is indeed very confusing for anyone without prior knowledge of the subject (like me).  I understand that mathematical terminology is to an extent unavoidable, but perhaps we could par it down a bit.  Check out the integral article.  Any beginner would at least have an idea of what is going on after reading the introduction.
 * The first sentence seems a little unnecessary/uninformative. Compare it with the first sentence of the sphere article.  Other than that, I don't really know what could be improved specifically, as I don't understand much of the article.  Maybe it's a little too specific of an article to be explained simply, but I think it could do with some improvement. (Frazz (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I agree that at least the beginning of the article could be made easier for people to understand. You could even include a brief, plain-English explanation of what a eutactic star is. My background is in biology, not math, but here's my attempt at breaking things down into something approximating plain English:
 * In Euclidean geometry, a eutactic star is defined by a number of pairs of vectors, all issuing from a central point.
 * Each pair of vectors contains two vectors, pointing in opposite directions.
 * The number of pairs of vectors is equal to or greater than the number of dimensions, for example, a 3-dimensional eutactic star must have at least 3 pairs of vectors.
 * Each pair of vectors is perpendicular to one or more pairs of vectors in the eutactic star.
 * A normalized eutactic star is one which meets the above criteria, as well as having the lengths of all its vectors equal to 1.
 * I may have made a mistake, as I'm no mathematician, but I think that with any mistakes corrected, something written in the above style would be helpful to a wider audience of people curious about what this thing mentioned on the front page might be. Gary (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My own background is I did a degree in mathematics over 20 years ago, and have rarely used mathematics beyond high school level since, but I had no difficulty understanding the article, like Gary. But that is not the point. The topic is a fairly specialist one, and can hardly be compared to the Sphere or Integral articles, both of which are are on general topics, part of high school mathematics. Instead compare it to the article on Orthonormal basis, referenced from this one. Or Simple module also referred to by this article.JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if a topic is mainly of interest to specialists, there's no reason for it to be inaccessible to other people who might be curious. Most people would find the other articles you linked difficult to understand. But if the subject can be explained accurately in plain English, why not explain it simply in the beginning of the article? Gary (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence is enough for even a twelve-year-old to understand. Beyond that, this is an exotic topic. However, I will try and insert an adaption of what you have there, Gary – if only a sentence's worth. Complex mathematical topics are complex mathematical topics. MOSMATH mandates that only the first sentence or paragraph be easy to understand; the rest should be strictly rigorous. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've inserted a second sentence. It's not completely dumbed down, but it should make intuitive sense to most people, combined with the first image. In fact, I think the first image and its caption provide a clear account to pretty much anyone who cares to look. Thoughts? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 22:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)