Talk:Non-Euclidean surface growth

A modest request

Can someone explain this topic in common English so that anyone with a high school education could understand it? It might make perfect sense to someone with a Masters' degree in mathematics, but as it currently stands, this article is a mess of jargon & technical gobblity-gook. -- llywrch (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Useless article

This article is nonsensical. Disregarding the poor writing, I doubt it would make sense even to people familiar with the material. The author also apparently doesn't know how to properly code citations. Please merge with Non-Euclidean geometry or similar article, or delete entirely. MaribelGame (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes sense to me and this seems a real topic, but I agree the English was garbled. I tried a quick rewrite to make the prose a little more clear. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge as an application of Non-Euclidean geometry or Riemannian geometry. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

A proposal was made last July to merge this into non-Euclidean geometry. It is not appropriate to merge the article there. This is one of many topics that apply non-Euclidean geometry to something else. If we merged all such articles into the parent article we would be left with a monster article where the actual non-Euclidean geometry is buried in cruft. This article is a problem but pushing the problem into a bigger article where it does not belong does not actually do anything useful to solve the problem. Therefore, I oppose the merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]