Talk:Metric map

Ill-advised page move[edit]

By moving this page from Short map to Metric map, User:Wlod has made this article incoherent. "Strictly short" now appears out of the blue. User:Wlod has also added 3 references to his own work, for this completely elementary and mathematically omnipresent concept. Short map might be the standard terminology in certain textbooks; for operators on normed spaces, the term "contraction" is standard. --Mathsci 04:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard to refer to the pioneering papers rather than to the papers written some 20-30 and more years later. Also, the name short is arbitrary, while metric maps is in the spirit of the theory of metric spaces and of theory of categories. Well, "strictly short" should be consistently changed to "strictly metric". -- Wlod 08:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now it is coherent. Also, I removed the later references. I still supply 2 since the first one is from a journal which is not on shelves of many libraries. -- Wlod 08:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is WP:OR; you have not provided any sources to show that this terminology is used by anybody but yourself, nor that it is generally accepted. WP is about verifiable facts not about your own personal view of mathematical truth. You did not invent this concept and you are likely to get into trouble if you claim you did. Please stop promoting yourself on WP. --Mathsci 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A metric map ƒ is an isometry if and only if 1) it is metric, 2) it is a bijection, and 3) its inverse is also metric." I guess the phrase "metric map" at the beginning of the sentence should be replaced with something like "map between metric spaces". Otherwise condition 1) would be meaningless.81.20.159.197 (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]