Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brjuno number


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 15:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Brjuno number

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I nominate this article for deletion, because in the current state the article appears to be a hoax. If we consider a Liouville number $$\sum \frac{1}{10^{n!}}$$, then we find out that its Brjuno function is convergent. Эйлер (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG, due to receiving significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. The rational given by the nominator appears to be WP:OR, if a source for it exists that analysis can be added to the article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Multiple scientific publications, e.g. [https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/272398/1-s2.0-S0022039606X05119/1-s2.0-S0022039606002737/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEMH%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQCLbnkf0PI%2Fu%2BfsGBD1GY6QrfPrqZPT3g3TN4dToZKNkwIgLrnWqi8V4jhWSWAGG%2FejON5XhU8s%2BKni89eObHUsXbEqtAMIWhADGgwwNTkwMDM1NDY4NjUiDJDyhfz4PEBs%2BcQbNCqRAzsJvJ7n%2F7fpYTQijEWcIr0bsmuwdd6N8FlocDuk4RGUGYrrEZhOmK21x1SpWxg9XJB%2FkQ9oKvAbaiWOSVz7vUtq1Ig8qpehYLq0IqcAmg6AmFoWAInWZ32zChd146epCZ3Azfj6C143OySpLnz8v7k%2B%2Bwe%2BeCu2THYNu7SeD%2BH8xeQ39tV%2BXyg6Qb6NWbwuJdWxT657CW3bLWVfswK0jy0%2FGPQ5BEH7hxtrI%2BskOBeZmI1hIbRu7LfBke4AdleQ3MWwR24gju7pUWSkWMxQQVHO8p8BzDo%2FfhvZY7Jh7QsmXXiOxVKAN2hlZJ%2Brz%2F3G6zBbetkj%2B%2FUPKthQjPjQ95So4uzXJg3Uy7LxjZ8wbNeTB372eoGg8BCQ325aUwgH6bahLdDzeFHxiQ%2F7uNJBOA3HeEpz0H7bPx3FOJjMsj6U%2FPcvtgBJfFK4JDUJErzHP9Yrz5UC9R5VN00059KpgJgMHpESE0LrRwIsEagUBA%2BsCD7Sl8qTakmAITD5A4boFuAdlnLrPohlg8PR5YumJVekMNuEjoUGOusBG4TI9mjQJvfpAiY7Tp8zNSizCAS67SYj7Wbj6mp4Yvdhn9obVB6YuH3u4KbanJDSpoi3ZEe5tL8pk8DU07QifdbDORsDrJ7KGEXNeanpe45zIHXSWU2KXtnBPvkKCTvaI7lIUieuaSoPN%2F01dCliSB6GDkMLc1Rhg78VCv1vshHmmhcEnynoYMb0l49bm0Ykt4Mx%2BwAzCE01xHttHqWah4Njf5zNSnTVuYgbk5jq4FfkhULbPbA%2B2UyiC31xkFZoPy7bmqd%2FXfpyOt159yeQe9Zd0Xy6zPjd%2BAkvOlk25ThcgKXbb9icSz3XBg%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20210518T094145Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYXYV4BBBU%2F20210518%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=abaec4ba2802f9a334b154c90fed7977ea1497cc5a3a0f58c82663003ce99e52&hash=7c6ae784acfc897b548c7bc747d7c1dd8b2647041ee72036767f8e01afdbc2f4&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S0022039606002737&tid=spdf-54bdc065-d3b1-4006-a757-1bb08e6172f6&sid=6e3c6e844955d34b4d18efc204d944257e72gxrqb&type=client Journal of Differential Equations], do not consider this to be a hoax.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 09:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are the claims in section 5 theorems? Are they about the function as defined in section 1? If they are, the real Brjuno function seems to be the main topic of mathematical significance in this article: perhaps a rename is appropriate? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Brjuno function redirects to this article (from 2011). From my perusal of the sources a rename to function is plausible here, but that is not an AfD matter.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 11:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. It's not appropriate to start an AfD if the aim is just to rename, but rename is an accepted ATD outcome of an AfD. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is a concept that appears in the title of two secondary sources authored by a Field medal. So, a WP article is definitely needed. About the title: It seems that the function is a tool for defining the numbers. So, the title seems correct. About the claimed inconsistency: It is either an error for an editor of the article, or of the opener of this discussion. In both cases the sources must be checked, and the article must be edited for avoiding conusion. This is in no way a reason for deleting the article. D.Lazard (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my nomination. Excuse me, the phrase about the Liouville numbers confused me. Эйлер (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.