Talk:List of mathematical properties of points

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Mathematics Low‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

It seems just to list articles which have "point" in their name, otherwise of little relation to each other. Keφr (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's like List of theorems. -- Taku (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theorems at least have some common structure to them: antecedent, consequent, proof. I can't say the same about things like decimal point (the full stop, when used to write real numbers), fixed point (an argument of a function) and accumulation point (topological/analytical meaning). It looks like someone confused different meanings of "point". Listing these things together as related is... pointless. Keφr (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we are not including things like Point Pleasant (TV series). Maybe a decimal point isn't point; but I think the others are genuine points. The imporant thing is to have a good inclusion criterion. (By the way, I liked the show.) -- Taku (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that one. I put in decimal point, as a joke, because I thought much like Keφr that this list was kind of pointless — too indiscriminate to be useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a case of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Ba dum tss. Keφr (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]