Talk:Gauss–Codazzi equations

Dump from Mainardi-Codazzi
Don't want to step on any tows. Luckily the article was new, and not much developed:

In differential geometry, the Mainardi-Codazzi equations relate the first fundamental form and the second fundamental form of a surface. Given a set of coefficents of the first and second fundamental forms, the Mainardi-Codazzi equations provide a simple method for determining whether a surface exists with that particular set of coefficients. The first fundamental form makes its appearance in terms of the Christoffel symbols:
 * $$e_v-f_u=e\Gamma_{12}^1 + f(\Gamma_{12}^2-\Gamma_{11}^1) - g\Gamma_{11}^2$$
 * $$f_v-g_u=e\Gamma_{22}^1 + f(\Gamma_{22}^2-\Gamma_{12}^1) - g\Gamma_{12}^2$$

Regards, Silly rabbit 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rabbit, No problem. I didn't know an article already existed. I added the classical equations to this article. Jhausauer 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved Consensus appears to be against the move at this time Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Gauss–Codazzi equations → Codazzi–Gauss equations – Alphabetise names in article title as common in such compounds. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I strongly disagree with the move.  In the secondary literature, the term "Gauss-Codazzi" is almost universally preferred to "Codazzi-Gauss", so I don't think a move is appropriate.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Actually, alphabetizing names is uncommon when there is a clear historical priority, see Gauss-Bonnet theorem.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are far too many exceptions to consider alphabetizing as common in these situations (Heine-Borel, Wedderburn-Artin, Skolem-Noether, etc., etc.) One should follow common usage and not try to fit things into an artificial convention. I also strongly disagree with the move. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Most of the sources that I have found refer to them as "Gauss–Codazzi–Mainardi equations".--ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The present order of the names is standard and reflects history. I doubt you will find any reliable source with the names in the other order.  Ozob (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Google Books results say everything: 20,000 vs 200 217.64.22.14 (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.