Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fibonacci hyperbolic functions


 * 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Fibonacci hyperbolic functions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ostensibly this subject has many sources in poor-quality academic journals. However, after combing through them, I found that sources which mention "Fibonacci hyperbolic functions" do so only in passing, and all seem to refer to papers from Chaos, Solitons, & Fractals, which is a rag. I can't find reliable sources which discuss them in any depth. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * delete. Hardly qualifies as an article as it does not explain their significance or give any context as to why they are important, it's just a list of formulae and image. But looking at the definitions they are just trivial transformations of the hyperbolic functions by the golden ratio, so entirely uninteresting.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP- A search with google on "hyperbolicfibonacci functions " comes up 243,000 results

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=-AVOVaKTCY6OyASNqoD4CQ#q=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&spell=1

including CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Second Edition (Poor quality???,ignorant !!) https://books.google.ca/books?id=aFDWuZZslUUC&pg=PA1038&dq=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mQtOVYWuCo2nyAS3goCoCg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hyperbolic%20fibonacci%20functions&f=false

There is even a book

https://books.google.ca/books?id=KkLfBQgYfdgC&pg=PA124&dq=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mQtOVYWuCo2nyAS3goCoCg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=hyperbolic%20fibonacci%20functions&f=false

Very interesting subject indeed. , notability is clearly none issue. --唐戈 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Wikipedia missing article

Fibonacci hyperbolic functions is an article requested by

Wikipedia:Missing science topics/Maths10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by --


 * Published on Official Fibonacci Quarterly

Fibonacci Quarter--Official Fibonacci Society


 * Delete per Blackburne. Trivial modification of standard hyperbolic functions.  There is no useful encyclopedic content.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment--It is listed in ''CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics,you are bloody ignorant

https://books.google.ca/books?id=aFDWuZZslUUC&pg=PA1038&dq=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mQtOVYWuCo2nyAS3goCoCg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hyperbolic%20fibonacci%20functions&f=false

and Mathworld,

Coverage of Mathworld topics Can you explain why content listed in  Mathworld should not appear on wikipedia


 * Commment Provide valid reason an article requested by Wikipedia Mising Science topis should be deleted and  remain missing ???????????

Wikipedia missing science topics--唐戈 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Comment--sorry you can't vote more then once. Wgolf (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. Regardless of the possible notability of this topic, the content of the article is a pointless explosion of formulas and plots that adds no value to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Having looked at one of the sources I can see where these are from. The similarity of Binet's formula to the hyperbolic functions means this straightforward transformation turns the latter into the former, and lets you e.g. generate Fibonacci numbers from them, and so plug them into formulae/properties of those numbers. But that’s the sum total what‘s interesting about them, it could easily be covered by a sentence in one or both of these articles, and none of it appears in this article. So yes, WP:TNT.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment If this is kept, it desperately needs lots of TeX copy-editing. Stuff like this:
 * $$ \cdots +(2/5)*\sqrt(5)*(5+\sqrt(5))*ln(1/2+ (1/2)*\sqrt(5))^2 * x^2/(\sqrt(5)+1) + \cdots $$
 * that ought to look like this:
 * $$ \cdots +\frac 2 5 \sqrt 5 (5+\sqrt 5)\ln\left(\frac 1 2 + \frac 1 2 \sqrt5\right)^2 \cdot \frac{x^2}{\sqrt{5}+1} + \cdots $$
 * Note $$\sqrt(5)$$ versus $$\sqrt 5$$, $$ln$$ versus \ln the vulgar asterisk, and other things. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even after your cleanups that formula needs help. Notice, for instance, that the subexpression
 * $$\frac 2 5 \sqrt 5 (5+\sqrt 5)$$
 * can be simplified to
 * $$2+2\sqrt 5.$$
 * To me this sort of problem is illustrative of why we shouldn't just blindly paste computer-program output into Wikipedia without understanding it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually there is also a factor of $$1 + \sqrt{5}$$ in the denominator of that term. So the subexpression
 * $$\frac 2 5 \sqrt 5 (5+\sqrt 5) \cdot \frac{1}{1 + \sqrt{5}}$$
 * can be simplified to
 * $$2$$.
 * --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, even worse. This is a fine example of Mathematics Made Difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as essentially original research. While it is certainly useful and interesting, I don't see an encyclopedia article on the topic. 16:19, 15 May 2015 (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.