User talk:Zeroparallax/Holor

Delete or merge
A couple of days ago I happened to look at a copy of a book (P. Moon and D. E. Spencer, Vectors, Van Nostrand, 1965) and found the word holor. I wondered what Wikipedia had to say about it, and found that this article had been PRODed because The term "holor" is unused except in one obscure book, where it seems to mean little more than "set of numbers". The reason given is false as there are at least two obscure books (Vectors and Theory of Holors - the second is referred to in the article). And the publishers (Van Nostrand and Cambridge University Press) are far from obscure. So I have removed the PROD and have instead suggested merging this article into that on the author Parry Moon. JonH (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

✭ Wishing to enter the discussion with my thoughts on the matter-coinage of such a word- that delineates the vast topic of the point entities, can only serve and advance the mathematic memes of our age. A timeless quality in this specific coinage; echoing forward from antiquity. The authors have given us a definite direction in this regard. I suggest the use and definition of the term 'holor' is in keeping with the beauty and majesty inherent in elegant mathematic theories. The term should not be used only to point back to the (the term's) creator, but be allowed the growth as is accorded to any concept meme []. The work of (P. Moon and D. E. Spencer) as related in the article as Theory of Holors in my opinion allows the electronic field of Audio-Visual Engineering a more malleable (fine tunable) numeric basis that eventual theories of both color and sound will merge and reach a zenith with holographic capture-replay equipment.Pantarbe (talk)WWmMcLeod  —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC) 216.169.227.55 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)