possible mistake?[change source]
I would like to question the part in the article which says that a Moebius strip has a dimension of one half.
Yet, the main Wikipedia article on the Moebius strip states that it is a two-dimensional manifold.
Contradiction? Nomadreid (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No contradiction. Wikipedia is correct, Möbius strips are two dimensional. I think the "half a dimension" thing is trying to describe how a Möbius strip is not orientable. I don't understand what this has to do with Calabi-Yau manifolds (which are orientable), therefore I don't know where to begin editing the article. Jowa fan (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Too much voice?[change source]
Hello, I believe this article has too much of the main author's voice in it. Using things like "But wait. These tiny parts are also interesting. Why? Although they are small, they are also very high in energy." and statements like, "Quantum takes place completely at 1/100000000000000000000 meters distance BEYOND the atomic and Calabi-Yau scales of 1/1000000000000000 meters.
That IS small." Is not the way I think Wikipedia is intended to inform. I move that we alter the article to have less expression in it. I don't think Wikipedia is a place for that style of writing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree. Yes this is simple Wikipedia but it is not a children's book either. Remove explanations about quantum scale and how CERN smashes miniscule objects, and provide a meaningful explanation understandable by a normal educated adult. Rustamabd (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Explaining the metric system[change source]
Though I understand this is the simple english version, I don't think it's adequate to start explaining what a metre is in this article in such detail. I'm removing it, but feel free to revert the change if you have any valid objections. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Broken links[change source]
Facade.com and gutenberg.org links towards the end of the text don't work as intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No experimental evidence[change source]
In my view, this should begin with the statement that everything in this theory is something that some physicists think might be true, but others do not, and that there is currently no experimental evidence for them. Also, I think it is worth mentioning that Calabi-Yau manifolds exist as a topic of mathematical interest independently of any supposed physical relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
My reasons for cutting back this page are the unsourced nature of one editor's text, and the point that physics is not mathematics. A discussion on En wiki has pointed up that no simple explanation can be given of this mathematical topic: you either understand the area or you don't. In any event, we cannot allow uncontrolled spiel, we need edits to be based on sources. IMO the page should never have been started here, because it doesn't even explain the mathematics. Knowing when you don't know is the start of wisdom. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)