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

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 Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

This article needs an introduction. It is not clear what the appropriate context is, and what this article is trying to say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real structure and Reality structure appear to be about the exact same concept, albeit the two equivalent ways of presenting it are done in the opposite order in each article. I propose these are merged into an article that clearly states sets out how the concept can be equivalently defined in either way. I'm not sure which name this article should be under - both seem to have about the same number of pages that link to it, but perhaps one name is more common than the other in the wider literature. -- mattrix 10:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Reality structure to Real structure:
  1. The two articles are definitely about the same thing.
  2. Real structure is significantly more common than Reality structure (252 MathSciNet matches vs. 5 MathSciNet matches).
  3. Real structure is more consistent with other standard nomenclature like Complex structure (rather than Complexity structure).
  4. Real structure is much less ambiguous than Reality structure (cf. the Google Books results for "reality structure").

So there should be a merge, and it should be from Reality structure to Real structure. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the fusion. Laurent.Claessens (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Y Merger complete.

I've done the merge simply, but perhaps a subject expert could integrate the concepts more coherently. Klbrain (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing here is confusing : «The second factor is usually denoted by . In fact, as subsets of , we have the equality . The phrasing "is usually denoted by" lead me to think that this is a kind of abuse of notation.

Laurent.Claessens (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]