## Spelling Edit

I'm pretty sure he said Rie-an-a-man. – *The preceding unsigned comment was added by* 128.84.234.200 (talk).

- Yes, Wil Wheaton fluffed the line. It's Riemannian in the script. -- Jörg 18:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

## From Talk:Riemannian geometry Edit

### Incorrect Edit

This article may be true, but I don't recall this term being referenced, or defined. -- Alan del Beccio 23:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

- "Riemannian tensor field" was referenced in "the vengeance factor". that was redirected here by the user who created this artciel. fyi. -- Sulfur 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the episode only referenced Riemmanian tensor field, then there should at least be an article at that place. Granted, we don't know what it is and don't have much to write about that, but still there needs to be something there. -- Jörg 07:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I found the original reference in TNG: "The Vengeance Factor" - Scene 29:
**Wesley**: It's the locally Euclidean metrization of a k-fold contravariant Riemannian tensor field.

*k*-fold refers to a manifold which is usually locally Euclidean metrisised (so I don't know what's so special about it) and a Riemannian tensor field is nothing but a*n*×*m*"vector" field which is applied to a manifold. From a mathematicians' point of view Riemannian geometry should be a good header, because it does also catch the part of the*k*-(mani)fold. Of course just the tiny part of the R' tensor field was mentioned. -- Kobi 12:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)- In this case,
*k*-fold refers to the type of tensor, and "fold" doesn't mean manifold, but the rank of the tensor, which is not actually an*n*×*m*"vector", but actually an*n*^{k}vector or perhaps an*n*×_{1}*n*× ... ×_{2}*n*vector. Which is more or less irrelevant to the name of the article. Althai 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)_{k}

- In this case,

- Well, I found the original reference in TNG: "The Vengeance Factor" - Scene 29:

- If the episode only referenced Riemmanian tensor field, then there should at least be an article at that place. Granted, we don't know what it is and don't have much to write about that, but still there needs to be something there. -- Jörg 07:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

### Merge Edit

This article should've been moved to Riemannian tensor field, but instead someone created an article at that redirect. I am fairly sure that Riemannian geometry was not mentioned in "The Nth Degree", and we shouldn't have articles for concepts not mentioned. If a "Riemannian tensor field" is too trivial, then it might be placed under Geometry, however that's a different argument. -- Tim Thomason 19:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

- But the concept is mentioned, and we do have articles for those that are inferred. Riemannian geometry is inferred, in this case, but the sum of the referenced components mentioned in the other subsection. -- Alan del Beccio 22:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- An object studied in Riemannian geometry was mentioned. While the actual reference was to "Riemannian tensor field" it seems silly to have an article on such an esoteric topic, since nobody is likely to care what a Riemannian tensor field is, beyond that it is a type of object which occurs in the mathematical field of Riemannian geometry. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that Riemannian geometry comes up in other episodes (I don't happen to know offhand) and is also important to general relativity, but the specific object mentioned by Wesley is unlikely to appear elsewhere. Also, Wikipedia will certainly have an article on Riemannian geometry in the 24th century, assuming it still exists, and will probably not have one on Riemannian tensor fields, so from the point of view that Memory Alpha is really an in-world encyclopedia, it makes more sense that the article be "Riemannian geometry". Personally, I would be in favor of a merge, with "Riemannian geometry" being the title of the merged page, and "Riemannian tensor field" being a redirect. Althai 23:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

- No real consensus, so removing the template until someone can come up with something better. -- Alan del Beccio 02:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I again move for this page to be merged. A good deal of the opposition 8 1/2 years was by arguing that using this title was better than the actually used, but deemed too trivial or "esoteric", Riemannian tensor field for which a separate page also exists. I don't think this reflects our current policy. Furthermore, I think the concept referred to was this [1], so even the wikipedia argument from above doesn't stand. Kennelly (talk) 22:10, March 6, 2016 (UTC)
- When I saw this in the merge list, I thought the suggestion would be moving it to geometry.
**Support**merge; even the article itself seems to be mainly about the field. The only other reference is to the theory of relativity, but you can't make leaps in links like that. -- LauraCC (talk) 17:12, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

- When I saw this in the merge list, I thought the suggestion would be moving it to geometry.

- I again move for this page to be merged. A good deal of the opposition 8 1/2 years was by arguing that using this title was better than the actually used, but deemed too trivial or "esoteric", Riemannian tensor field for which a separate page also exists. I don't think this reflects our current policy. Furthermore, I think the concept referred to was this [1], so even the wikipedia argument from above doesn't stand. Kennelly (talk) 22:10, March 6, 2016 (UTC)

### Tenses Edit

*Moved to Memory Alpha talk:Point of view*