Talk:Analytic geometry

Relationship between algebra and geometry

The relationship between algebra and geometry is nontrivial. There exist proofs of this relationship based on the theory of geometry and notions of geometric length. What does this mean? Richard Pinch 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to what I assume it meant. A mildly interesting point for our wonkish bretheren: can this metatheorem that everyone knows be given an accessible reference? Charles Matthews 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems non-trivial. Euclidean geometry is consistent, yet the same cannot be said of arithmetic. Tarski's work comes to mind. So how do you quickly show that analytic geometry doesn't let you talk about the integers or rationals? Analytic geometry is routine and algorithmically decidable via Grobner bases, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcfreely (talk • contribs) 02:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(Deleting previous comment.) How silly of me. Of course, the metatheorem that Euclidean geometry = analytic geometry is proven somewhere in the course of Tarski's proof that Euclidean geometry is decidable. The key steps are to show that Tarski's axioms are interpretable in the theory of real closed fields and that there exists a decision-procedure for the latter via quantifier elimination. To clarify, Grobner bases provide more efficient algorithms for the second step. An immediate consequence is that elementary geometry is routine. Amcfreely 03:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The line is true but has nothing to do here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.166 (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Too little info on the modern and advanced meaning

This article has Too little info on the modern and advanced meaning. Maybe this article should be renamed Analytic geometry(classical meaning) and a new article should be created Analytic geometry(modern and advanced meaning) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.141 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I really can not see an advantage to having words on the tin that don't match what is in the tin. An article entitled "Analytic Geometry" should be about the modern subject of analytic geometry. A separate article entitled "Co-ordinate Geometry" should be about, well how about, co-ordinate geometry. Surely it would be obtuse to have it any other way, especially as this is an encyclopedia with an object of clarifying material. FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Analytic geometry vs Algebraic geometry

There is a lot of implicit mention of algebraic geometric concepts such as algebraic curves. To my knowledge analytic geometry is simply the study of coordinate systems. Perhaps this should be fixed. 67.252.103.23 (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Negative Signs

Am I missing something extremely obvious, or is the very first illustration in this article (the one captioned "Cartesian coordinates") missing some negative signs? 2604:2000:EFC0:2:6101:CCF:CD4B:8D4E (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is missing negative signs. This illustration has been defective since Jan. 2015 and the creator of the diagram was aware of this as it is mentioned on the file page for this illustration. It probably should be removed. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It has now been replaced (not by me) with a correct illustration. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Analytisk geometri" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Analytisk geometri and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Analytisk geometri until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)