Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frivolous Theorem of Arithmetic

Frivolous Theorem of Arithmetic

 * Keep it's a pretty important theorem in experimental mathematics. It's really a rephrasing of Richard Guy's law of small numbers. Anyway, added some more references to illustrate its relevance.


 * Delete this pretty feeble math joke. Maybe it could be a launching pad for mathematical jokes of something ... - DavidWBrooks 19:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete hardly a theorem. --InShaneee 19:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep It may seem oversimplified, but it forces one to think about perspective. Since there are an infinite number of natural numbers, if one defines a cut-off point for "very, very, very large" there will be infinite numbers greater than that point, and finite numbers less than that point.  It helps one remember that numbers are very large and that there are a lot of them.  It is important to keep perspective about numbers when trying to understand infinity. -- Mike R. 20:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)(aka user 208.252.227.26. Seven edits.)
 * Delete, hardly seems useful. --Wtshymanski 05:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP This is not a math joke; it is a true theorem. Technically, all of math theorems, once proven, is considered trivial. This is the perfect example. If it's true, it must be stated. One cannot arbitrarily judge a theorem to be "hardly a theorem". (unsigned comment by user 24.203.253.122, who has 2 edits.)


 * Keep "Hardly seems useful"? Usefulness is not a criteria to be taken in consideration in math, nor is it one when proving theorems. Wiles' proof on Fermat's Last Theorem has yet been used in anything, not even in the proof of another theorem, yet no one's debating whether FLT should be deleted from wikipedia. (unsigned comment by user Icebreaker.)


 * Keep, if you were going to throw out all the useless math theorems hanging around, we'd be here until some of them actually became useful. 69.157.228.126 17:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * User's only edit. --InShaneee 18:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Wtshymanski. The theorem isn't particularly practical, especially as stated, but it provides an important characterization of numbers. Maybe what this page could use is a paragraph of two going into detail just what the theorem means.
 * According to page history, comment made by 4.155.63.40.


 * leave it
 * According to page history, comment made by 69.158.116.209.


 * Keep It's a mathematical therom, usefullness is not an issue Zurtex
 * According to page history, comment made by 81.156.186.129. Unknown if it is actually Zurtex.
 * Sorry I assure you that was me the log in doesn't always seem to work I will remember to check next time Zurtex
 * Delete Currently not enough credible sources. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not enough credible sources? Mathworld is very much credible. Comment made by Icebreaker
 * But that is just only one source. My teachers always taught me to cite multiple sources whenever I wrote articles and papers -- especially when it is under dispute. The more proof you have, the better the chances you have at persuading others to your side. Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Fundamental theorem of arithmetic only has one source, you going to suggest that be deleted? Zurtex
 * Last time I checked, there was more than one. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I just added a second source.
 * Comment made by 205.236.144.41


 * Delete. Just look at the name.  Frivolous.  If we added all the frivolous things in the world to Wikipedia, it would be absurdly bloated.  This perhaps could be added into another article, but as itself it's not worth keeping.  Sholtar 10:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Frivolous is just the name, often in mathematics we take names and change what they mean to a certain degree, if someone came up with a way to factories a number in polynomial time and called it the frivolous way of factoring a number it would not be cause for deleting it. In this case it's just an amusing way of demonstrating a rather important point. Zurtex
 * As Zurtex pointed out, mathematics often use names that are not in their most intuitive sense. Case and point: the Fundamental theorem of algebra. Leave the entry; sooner or later someone will elaborate the Frivolous Theorem of Arithmetic futher (it does have some implications; it is not as "frivolous" as it sounds).
 * If it has some implications, then add them to the article so we aren't here arguing with nearly no content to argue about. The only implication is the fact that there are infinite numbers.  If you want, give it a subsection in the article on infinity, but it's not worth it's own article.  Even if it weren't as pointless as it is, the article isn't encyclopedic in the first place.  Either add content or just reference it elsewhere. Sholtar 01:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually it has many implications directly relevant to it, one obvious one is for a sequence $$\left\{ a_n \right\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \rightarrow \infty$$ as $$n \rightarrow \infty$$ we have that most characteristics of most of these sequences we can not compute. This is a direct observation of this theorem and not a related one on infinity. But regardless, it is still a mathematical theorem, I am unsure on the policy for editing articles being considered for deletion so I have not edited it. Zurtex
 * Articles that are currently in consideration for deletion can still be edited. Please add it if you can, as I, too, like to see this article saved.
 * Comment made by 24.37.241.20
 * I suppose with the additions, it could be a feasible article. A bit more and I'll change my vote.  Sholtar 03:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a theorem, and this page can be further elaborated, therefore we do not need to delete it.
 * Comment made by 24.37.241.20
 * Keep Math theorems cannot be deleted on the basis of "usefulness" or the lack thereof.
 * Keep It's good enough for MathWorld, it's good enough for Wikipedia.

Why is this still here?


 * keep and wikify it seems to be written with a very cynical edge which detracts from the importance of it. Sensation002 23:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * keep I used it to prove Fermat's Last Theorem!
 * Keep Don't judge a book by its cover, and don't judge this theorem by its name. Russ Blau (talk) 13:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)