Talk:Cone

Cone (solid) vs Right circlar cone

Now there seems to be an issue with cone (geometry) and right circular cone. I'm inclined to redirect the latter here; most of the links in require the 'right circular' meaning of cone.

Charles Matthews 18:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Where was "here"? The talk for cone (geometry) redirects here.

--Jerzy (t) 20:09, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Cone (geometry) vs Cone (linear algebra) vs Cone (solid)

This section is obsolete now --Jorge Stolfi 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC) The redirect links between these articles don't really make sense. The more abstract definition of cone is the following: A subset ${\mathcal {C}}$ of a vector space is a cone if $x\in {\mathcal {C}}$ implies $\lambda x\in {\mathcal {C}}$ for any $\;\lambda >0$ .[reply]

The article for Cone (solid) seem to be for a right cylindrical cone in 3-space. Since this is a particular instance of a cone, so it probably should be listed as an example under Cone (geometry).

Also, I think the definition for pointed cone is incorrect. Counterexample: R^3 is a cone that contains the origin. It is not pointed.

I don't know the definition of pointed for a general cone. For a polyhedral cone, I believe pointed means that ${\mathcal {C}}$ contains an extreme point. --Scott 17:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cone (geometry) vs Cone (solid)

Until 2005/dec/22, the article cone (geometry) was about a concept of linear algebra, and the common geometrical shape was described in cone (geometry). There were may pages pointing at the former when they should point to the latter. So I renamed cone (geometry) to cone (linear algebra) and changed all links to cone (geometry) to point to the appropriate article. Now cone (geometry) points back to the cone disamb page.

But now there still one inconsistency: articles on geometric solids are usually named xxx (geometry), not xxx (solid). Perhaps we should now delete cone (geometry), move cone (geometry) to cone (geometry), and fix again all the links... Jorge Stolfi 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support --Swift 07:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Usgnus 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. – Axman (☏) 09:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Edgelord 06:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I see why my links to http://www.mathguide.com/lessons/Volume.html and http://www.mathguide.com/lessons/SurfaceArea.html were deleted on this page. However, by Wikipedia's own definition of spam, my links are clearly not spam, as there is no advertising or commercial products being sold.

I taught math for 13 years. There's substantial educational practice that students need access to auxiliary information beyond the classroom to understand a topic. Also, my site offers free dynamic quizzes to help students learn.

I do understand that there are rules for linking to one's own website. If someone finds this section of my site relevant, please link to it.

Why is the volume 1/3 of the volume of a cylinder?

i am just wondering how did anyone justify as it is? we cannot really assume anything. is there really any proof to it? in a triangular pyramid we can still prove it. how could we prove it on a cone?

This result goes back to Archimedes. If you believe it for a pyramid, just put the cone inside a cylinder, then slice the cylinder into a gazillion wedges like a panettone. (But anyway in WP one does not give proofs, just results.) Jorge Stolfi 09:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.mathguide.com/lessons/Volume.html#cones as this bears out experimentally.

Im knew to wikipedia editing (long time reader) so please delete this if its out of line etc... 1/3 can be proven using calculus by integrating a function r(z)(radius wrt heigth) over the interval (0, h),this definite interval yields the formula for the volume of a cone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.12.206 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't say out of line at all. Such discussion, however, usually takes place on the Reference desk. The talk pages being for discussing article content. Glad you've deceided to test the edit button :-). --Swift 20:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 17:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I've put up a proposal to merge Right circular cone into this article. The RCC is a special case of a cone and I don't think it needs a page for itself. --Swift 07:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Conic solid, Projective cone and Conical surface to this proposal. --Swift 20:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right circular cone should definitely be merged, but I'm not sure about the others. The combined article would need some major restructurting, but that might be a good thing. Let's try it. —Keenan Pepper 01:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support, these pages are a mess. I might do this myself if I get time. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a sloppy merger and added a {{cleanup}} tag. I didn't merge the Projective cone since that article is quite a bit more mathmatical than I think a *_(geometry) article should be (I wasn't even sure if the sub-section on the parametrization of the conic solid was too much). If everyone is happy, I'll AfD the merged ones in the next few days. --Swift 05:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't AFD them, they should be redirected per Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages. I have redirected Conic solid. I removed the template from Projective cone and improved that article a bit. It looks like Conical surface still needs to be worked in and then redirected. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]