Talk:Borromean rings

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Borromean rings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years

Borromean rings has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result March 16, 2021 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 28, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the common depiction of the Borromean rings as three linked but pairwise-unlinked circles (pictured) is an impossible object, because they cannot actually be circular?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Mathematics Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

How the heck is this pronounced? Plenty of other articles for uncommon terms include pronunciation guides, such as Santorini or Székelys or Cappadocia or CERN. Would someone please add a pronunciation guide to the Borromean rings article for how to pronounce "Borromean"? -- Eiríkr Útlendi |^{Tala við mig} 09:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It was just added to the first footnote on the first sentence last week, after a big edit war by a multiple-times-blocked edit-warrior over making it more prominent. The short answer (from the source provided) is like the English words "borrow ME an". The source is from the 1920s, is badly formatted as a source, uses a pre-IPA convention for formatting pronunciations, is about the islands rather than the rings, and none of the modern dictionaries I checked have this, but maybe that's close enough. --David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see it in the footnote. The other articles linked above include the phonemic guide inline, so it never occurred to me to even look for it in a footnote. Setting aside any discussion of the source (about which I know nothing), just from a usability perspective, a footnote may not be the best approach. -- Eiríkr Útlendi |^{Tala við mig} 06:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You think the most central, most important aspect of the subject, so important that you must learn about it first before anything else, in the first phrase of the first sentence, before you get to anything else, making the sentence run on longer without getting to the point, so that maybe you go away in boredom before even finishing it, is the correct way to pronounce it? See WP:MOSPRON, "Pronunciation should be indicated sparingly, as parenthetical information disturbs the normal flow of the text and introduces clutter. In the article text, it should be indicated only where it is directly relevant to the subject matter, such as describing a word's etymology or explaining a pun." There is no pun and there is no etymologically-explanatory value in this instance, so it should not be in the text. --David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do view pronunciation as important.

Part of why I look things up here is to be able to talk about them. As in, verbally and audibly.

If a Wikipedia article doesn't provide at least the superficial level of information needed to be able to do that, it is deficient.

If a parenthetical IPA pronunciation guide is "making the sentence run on longer without getting to the point, so that maybe you go away in boredom before even finishing it", I think that indicates a defect in the reader more than the article.

I refer you again to other articles that include pronunciation guides directly inline, right at the start of the article, immediately after the initial mention of the headword terms: Santorini, Székelys, Cappadocia, CERN.

I don't understand the vehemence or aggression in your response. I don't know if you're aware, but you come across as very angry and borderline insulting / abusive. Is that your intent? -- Eiríkr Útlendi |^{Tala við mig} 17:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are picking up an edit war recently begun by a four-times-blocked-for-edit-warring edit-warrior. Is that your intent? Re your listing of other articles that violate the guidance I quoted in WP:MOSPRON, see WP:WAX.

As for why I am testy about this: Wikipedia articles, over time, tend to become crufty and bad through the accumulation of small well-meaning edits by people who don't see or don't care about the big picture of how it affects the readability, flow, and overall content of the article, such as exactly the kind of edit you are proposing. I recently spent considerable effort removing the cruft from this article and bringing it up to Good Article status. So it is irritating for it to so quickly become under pressure from you and others to make it crufty again. --David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Hello again, sorry for the hiatus. I spend more of my time over at Wiktionary.

I know nothing about an edit war, so I must apologize if I'm bumping up into any bruises in my ignorance. I am definitely a word nerd, which is why I spend more time at Wiktionary. Perhaps due to that proclivity, when I run across an article here at Wikipedia that has a title unknown to me, I'm interested in some of the more word-ish aspects, such as "how the heck do I pronounce this thing?"

Thank you for the links to WP:MOSPRON and WP:WAX. After perusing those pages, I don't understand your mention of "violating" WP:MOSPRON, since the second paragraph seems to be in favor of including pronunciation information on first instance. Indeed, the #Appropriate use section there further lays out how and why to include pronunciation information -- all of which seems germane and appropriate for this Borromean rings article. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Pronunciation section linked from #Appropriate use further reinforces that we actually should include pronunciation information in Borromean rings: "If the name of the article has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation in parentheses after the first occurrence of the name." For me, at least, the pronunciation of "Borromean" is definitely not apparent from its spelling: I can parse that as three different likely possibilities. Meanwhile, WP:WAX looks like a non sequitur, since that covers arguments about whether to keep or delete pages, which is irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't agree that pronunciation information is cruft, so from that perspective, I suppose you and I just don't see things the same way. Considering that pronunciation information, where added, should only be added once, and should be kept brief, even if it were cruft, it isn't much. I continue to find the stridency of your opposition disproportional to the issue at hand. I also note that one possible reason "for it to so quickly become under pressure" to re-add such information might well be that other people (such as me) actually find it relevant and useful. -- Eiríkr Útlendi |^{Tala við mig} 02:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat the quote I earlier made from WP:MOSPRON, since you state that you don't understand my mention of this guideline: "Pronunciation should be indicated sparingly, as parenthetical information disturbs the normal flow of the text and introduces clutter. In the article text, it should be indicated only where it is directly relevant to the subject matter, such as describing a word's etymology or explaining a pun." --David Eppstein (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: The phrasing "such as" is not exhaustive nor restrictive. How to talk about a subject is, to me, "directly relevant to the subject matter", and thus deserving of inclusion in the text of the article. Again, from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Pronunciation,

If the name of the article has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation in parentheses after the first occurrence of the name. Most such terms are foreign words or phrases (mate, coup d'état), proper nouns (Ralph Fiennes, Tuolumne River, Tao Te Ching), or very unusual English words (synecdoche, atlatl).

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bet that a lot of mathematicians (both amateur and professional) have seen "Borromean" in writing a lot more than they've ever heard it spoken... AnonMoos (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is? The pronunciation is there. At the start of the article. It is just not the most prominent thing you see before anything else in the article. As it should be not. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that that may mean pronunciation isn't actually vitally important for this article... AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I misunderstood. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein I just removed the wrong claim that the Borromean rings are one of the up to 21 regular tessellation links defined in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.2827v3.pdf

This is obviously false: Table 1 of the paper doesn't contain any link with just 3 components.

In more detail: the complement of the Borromean ring does consist of two regular ideal octahedra. However, the condition in the paper is stronger: the decomposition of the manifold into octahedra needs to have enough symmetries to take any flag to any other flag of the same orientation. That is: each octahedron can be taken to any octahedron by a symmetry. And each orientation-preserving symmetry of an octahedron must be realized by a symmetry of the manifold fixing the octahedron. - Matthias Goerner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.93.72.121 (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's clear enough. I removed the unused reference left by this change. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cerberus0 has been trying to remove or downplay the "Ballantine rings" name and history from this article, stating that in edit summaries that it is an "advertisement". On the contrary, we have reliable sources that are independent from Ballantine/Pabst stating that this is (or maybe more accurately was) one of the standard names for this topic, and explaining why. My position is that this topic is relevant, the alternative name should remain in the lead, and the history should remain in the section about history and symbolism rather than relegated to a new cruft-magnet WP:TRIVIA section. But I would welcome reasoned and source-based discussion of that here. Emotional appeals to anti-commercialism are not relevant and not welcome, much as I might agree in spirit with that philosophy. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i. I did not try to remove "Ballantine rings". I stated I would not object to it.

ii. To understand why, look at the Google ngram viewer for the two phrases. Cerberus (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did remove it. You removed it from the lead and from the "History and symbolism" section, instead relegating it to the end of the article into a new worthless catch-all "popular culture" section.

As for ngrams, in Wikipedia we go by what reliable sources tell us, not so much by original research based on web searching. In this case, Cromwell et al 1998 say "In North America, the design is known as the Ballantine rings", and Glick adds that "the rings were widely known in the 1950s when Ballantine beer, "'crisp' as a line-drive double," was a principal broadcasting sponsor for New York Yankees baseball games." Cromwell et al also note the existence of scholarly work in knot theory using this term [1].

I think today that name has fallen into disuse, but that isn't a reason for removing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently misunderstand what Glick actually said, in your actual quote. The name has not only fallen into disuse, it NEVER had wide use. It should either be removed or demoted. Highlighting a practically nonexistent usage in this way is inappropriate and misleading. You have the evidence. Why aren't you honoring it? Cerberus (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cromwell cites a single source, Formal Knot Theory, that is NOT about Borromean rings but mentions them in passing and notes (parenthetically) a secondary term.

At the very least, referring twice (!) in the article to "Ballantine rings" is misleading the reader by suggesting an almost non-existant usage is common. Cerberus (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I am following sources. You are following your outrage. One of those two is encyclopedic and neutral. The other is unwelcome here. And how is it even possible for a direct quote, stated without annotations or interpretation, to "misunderstand" the quote that it quotes? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because Glick does *not* say that they were know *as* Ballantine rings. Get it?

It is appropriate to treat Google ngrams as published results (by Google) and therefore very reliable rather than as "original research". Cerberus (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More sources for "Ballantine rings" (not needed for the article, but maybe helpful in suggesting that this phrase was widely known):

• "Advertising symbols glorified", Life magazine, 1940: "men and women susceptible to the graphic manipulations of American advertising will be startled by the sight of Coty powder puffs, Ballantine rings, Maxwell House coffee cups, ..."
• Brian Thomson, Judith Bruckner, Andrew Bruckner, Mathematical Discovery, 2011 (self-published?), p. 182: "Many of our readers might prefer to call these Ballantine rings"
• Luciano Boi, Geometries of Nature, World Scientific, 2005, p. 139: "Another example of this sort is the Borromean (or Ballantine) rings"
• Claudi Alsina , Roger B. Nelsen, Icons of Mathematics, Amer. Math. Soc., 2020, p. 157: "In the United States they are sometimes called the Ballantine rings"
• Jon C. Loren, Synthesis of Topological Isomers from Manisyl-substituted Polypyridine Ligands, dissertation, UCSD, 2004, [2]: "The Borromean link is also referred to as the Ballantine rings or the brewer's rings"
• Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, Academic Press, 2002, [3]: "Another example of this sort is the Borromean (or Ballantine) rings"
• Charles Euchner, Extraordinary Politics: How Protest And Dissent Are Changing American Democracy, Routledge, 2018, p. 164: "The parts of an organization overlap like ballantine rings" (lowercased)
• Karen Swenson, A Daughter's Latitude: New & Selected Poems, Copper Canyon Press, 1999, p. 92: "the morning after it's as though all the Ballantine rings dissolved to one and the men just leap through like fancy horses at the circus"
• George J. Lankevich, "Postcards from Times Square", Square One, 2001, p. 72: "Bubbling Bromo, penguins smoking Kools, and a clown tossing Ballantine rings were among Leigh's contributions to the fabulous clutter of the area"
• Don Asher, "Notes from a Battered Grand", Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992, [4]: "Careful examination of the casing reveals the czar's personal crest, an ingenious design of interlocking circles predating this century's famed Ballantine rings"

—David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You ability to dredge a few examples from the internet does not indicate the usage is or even was widespread. This is unreliable original research on the topic of frequency of use. A reliable source on frequency of use is Google ngram. Use it. Cerberus (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. We go by published sources, not by web searches. Those were published sources, not "examples from the internet". Learn the difference. Also we are not making and should not make claims that the usage was widespread, only that it was used "sometimes". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the Don Asher one seems to be originally from a 1913 story in Harper's, and the Euchner book was originally published in 1996. Here's another example from Faye George's poem "Glory Hole": "... in clam shell and chicken bone, / in the rust lace of old tin, a fragment of rosary, / the Ballantine rings of a family's shame. / A civilization is in there, ..." (link goes to the book Back Roads, 2003). And one more example, from a John Roche column in the Washington Court House Record Herald, 1974: "This was not a 'separation of powers,' but a system of checks and balances. Each branch was interlocked with the two others like the Ballantine rings." –jacobolus (t) 19:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The logo was well-known in the U.S. during the mid-20th-century, but it deserves only a brief mention on this article. AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct pronunciation of "Borromean" is approximately bore-oh-MAY-in (and not boh-ROME-ee-in as the article claims). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:444e:7fbc:5a62:4fb6 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's claimed pronunciation in English is boh-ro-MEE-in. The colon in the IPA indicates the long vowel. It is referenced to a published source. I am sure that other languages would pronounce the penultimate vowel differently. Do you have a published source for an English pronunciation that uses /eɪ/ in place of /iː/? If so we could at least include both pronunciations. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Talk:Borromean rings/Archive 1 § clarification

In the figure, those are not geometric circles. Perhaps the lighting from the simple raytracing is misleading. That particular projection sends them to true planar circles, but in 3-space they are pringle shaped as has been mentioned. You can also do it with ellipses, but then they won't project to true circles, as in the figure. Rybu (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Talk:Borromean rings/Archive 1 § Diagrams in "Mathematical properties"

Perhaps it would help to include a more realistically rendered image. Here is a true-life picture of essentially the same configuration, but in the "bad" projection they appear as hexagons, rather than circles. https://www.printables.com/model/161860-borromean-rings-hexagons Rybu (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a realistically rendered image with ellipses already in the article, at the start of Borromean rings § Ring shape. It is not the image I would choose for the lead of the article, though (and neither is your image of notched hexagons). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]