Misplaced Pages

:Featured picture candidates/Inner radius - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) at 11:14, 5 November 2012 (→Inner radius: '''Comment''' A member of the WikiProject Images and Media wrote "[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Illustration_taskforce&diff=454540741&oldid=454389114 All I can say about its illus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:14, 5 November 2012 by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (→Inner radius: '''Comment''' A member of the WikiProject Images and Media wrote "[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Illustration_taskforce&diff=454540741&oldid=454389114 All I can say about its illus)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Inner radius

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 10:51:44 (UTC)

Original – The circumradius (blue) and inner radius (green) of a set (dark red, with its convex hull shown as the lighter red dashed lines). The inner radius is smaller than the circumradius except for subsets of a single subset (a disc), for which they are equal.
Reason
Best illustration and perhaps the only illustration in the literature, which simply uses the definitions (without illustration). The distinction between inner radius and circumradius explains why the Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem is an improvement over the Shapley–Folkman theorem.
Articles in which this image appears
Shapley–Folkman lemma
FP category for this image
Mathematics
Creator
David Eppstein
  • Support as nominator --Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, educational and encyclopedic. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd like to see some verification provided. I assume there is some academic paper or textbook that could be cited to show that the information presented is correct. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    Reply The information is correct because it simply applies the definitions found in the original article (Starr). I understand that supremum and infimum operators are difficult to understand for persons who've not studied university mathematics; you could ask at the WikiProject Mathematics for additional confirmations. However, Jacob Scholbach, Geometry guy, and other mathematicians have scrutinized the article as it went through GA and A class nominations (successful) and its FA nomination (unsuccessful, because of failure on "brilliant prose"): Perhaps you could first scan those nominations and judge the comments about the content and its being based on reliable sources, before asking for new confirmations? (In response to your query, I left a notice at the WikiProject Mathematics.) Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment A member of the WikiProject Images and Media wrote "All I can say about its illustrations is that 'I am impressed'. Excellent.", in response for a request for an evaluation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Categories: