Talk:Stanley–Reisner ring

Gofors (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC) This article is now linked to from the most relevant articles, so that should now be ok!

As been stated in the message-field, this article will be completely LaTeXed soon. If If it would seem more tasteful, feel free to mark it as "Under construction".

The concept of "Stanley-Reisner ring" (St-Re ring) is historically very important - it actually represents the starting point of the creation of a truly algebraic "algebraic topology" even if it, as a concept, first appears in combinatorics. As an important mathematical concept it should be included in the Wikipedia. Though it has been used intensively over the years, the concept hasn't been properly formalized. For example, from the original definitions of St-Re rings it is not possible to conclusively conclude what St-Re ring should be related to either of the simplicial complexes "\emptyset" or "{\emptyset}". This article represents a firm formal foundation of the subject of St-Re rings. As such, it must be accepted and kindly nursed to become a valuable source for young mathematicians all over the world. However, by its mere existence, it does point out the lack of any truly solid formalization in the existing literature, which, unfortunately, might annoy some.

Moreover, this article is accessible to anyone who is interested, studies the text and follows the links. Besides, "most readers", or rather, all readers of this article, will have a background in algebraic topology and combinatorics. If the criteria for the acceptance of an article is that the average man in street, without effort, should be able to understand any mathematical article in Wikipedia, no advanced mathematical articles can be allowed to appear here.

Gofors (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please understand that, while it is perhaps difficult to adapt mathematical material to the "general reader", there are certain conventions of Wikipedia writing that must be followed in all contributions. Neutrality is not negotiable, so that mathematical articles, as all others, must be descriptive and not argumentative, when it comes to the virtues of theories. Secondly, Wikipedia is a place to report on existing knowledge, not to publish new thinking. I hope that helps on a foundational level to explain what the policy on content implies. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I just texified the formulas and improved the layout to the best of my knowledge. Gofors (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is no longer an orphan. The layout is now acceptable. The cleanup is complete. The issue-signs is therefore removed. Gofors (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have rewritten the article in accordance with general conventions of wikipedia, following Stanley and Miller–Sturmfels. Arcfrk (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)