Talk:Projective frame

First post
This needs work, please feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough talk contribs (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 June 2004 (UTC)

Definition does not work for all axiomatic projective planes
Even when you let the field be a random field, you still won't have frame defined for all cases : not all axiomatic projective planes are isomorphic with a structure over a field (or division ring). The definition however remains what you might expect : four points, no three collinear (in an axiomatic projective plane).

Or am I incorrect (in Dutch we use the word 'skelet' (skeleton) for that, so seeing you call this frame, I thought it was exactly the same) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilbu (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)