Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God's algorithm


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Metamagician3000 11:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

God's algorithm
The article reads:
 * "For a particular type of problem, "God's Algorithm" is the most efficient way of solving that problem for a particular composite of space and memory efficiency."

This is only a dictionary definition, and I don't see much scope for expansion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even a dictdef, as the article doesn't explain what God's algorithm actually is, or the problems that it can solve.   (aeropagitica)    (talk)   04:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, as the definition says, "God's algorithm" for a given problem is the best algorithm for solving that problem - we're not talking about a particular algorithm or problem. A useful definition, but not an encyclopedia article. There is more than the definition in the article. Robin Johnson 15:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube, which seems to be the context on Google. Melchoir 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten, although it could use some references. Melchoir 19:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Melchoir. Maybe it could be expanded later. Kevin 05:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's certainly capable of expansion, and is not restricted to Rubik's Cube, so a redirect could be misleading. Check out some of the Google results. Tyrenius 06:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would agree that the concept is not restricted to Rubik's Cube, but I wonder how it can be expanded. Could you give an example? The search for an optimal algorithm is certainly interesting, but it seems to me that the natural place to treat this is not in God's algorithm, but in some other page talking about the specific problem being solved. For Rubik's Cube, we have Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube; for matrix multiplications, this is discussed in matrix multiplication, and if it gets too large for that, it can be discussed in Optimal algorithm for matrix multiplication, et cetera. I don't think it has any use to gather all these optimal algorithms for diverse problems in one place. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This could work as an overview which directs to other articles with specific examples.Tyrenius 06:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with algorithm, this looks like an important concept, but there is too little to say about it for its own article. J I P  | Talk 08:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've rewritten the article. Please have another look. Lambiam Talk 10:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Lambiam's rewrite. As Tyrenius mentioned, the topic has quality Google results. There appears to be substantial interest in the topic. ScottW 13:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NFT made up on rubik's cube forums. There are optimal solutions, heuristic algorithms, and optimal algorithms.  Even with the rewrite it is just an article about some people inventing a term for something that already exists and is not notable. Combinatorial optimization is where this should be discussed. Kotepho 14:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I had a reactionary prescriptive instead of decriptive response there. It seems that this term can be sourced, even if I don't like it. Kotepho 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite. I don't know what the NFT has to do with this, but Kotepho appears to be claiming it's a neologism used only to talk about Rubik's Cube; the briefest glance at Google's output reveals that while that is the community in which it is most common, it is used in plenty of other contexts. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to WP:NFT. NFT => Wikipedia is not for things... Sorry about the Newspeak. Kotepho 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef. Robin Johnson 15:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Keep and cleanup. Apologies: I voted before I read the article, for which I deserve to look like an idiot. I thought the nominator meant that was all the article said. Interesting mathematical article. Needs references added, which should be possible as there are plenty of Google hits on academic sites. Robin Johnson 15:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That was all it said, but it was rewriten. Kotepho 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting enough, is it linked to optimal algorithm properly? Lundse 17:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This subject is a relevant mathematical theory. 1652186 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not just use God's algorithm to determine whether or not to keep the article? In all seriousness, Keep. It passes the google test. BigDT 21:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This concept of a proof so succinct that it is beautiful or elegant is referred to in "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers : The Story of Paul Erdos and the Search for Mathematical Truth"...and, as I came to find out, in the article about Paul Erdos. Although this afd seems to show that the term has gone beyond Erdos, one way or another, his article should be tied in here. --129.107.81.12 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (a random wiki surfer)
 * Comment I have some issues with the rewrite. It changes the definition of "God's algorithm": it adds the requirement that it be practical and it restricts it to games modelled by digraphs. The links served up by Google seem to be ambivalent on the practicality requirement. I think that this shows the difficulties in writing an article about what I believe to be an ill-defined phrase mainly used colloquially, which is why I'm standing by my nominiation notwithstanding the rewrite. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've slapped an OR tag on it, but I think it's salvageable. Google books turns up a couple of references by a David Joyner, who seems to define the phrase. Melchoir 04:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can think of ways of improving it and expanding on it. Paul Erdős used to talk of a "proof from the book", meaning God's book, which might be considered God's algorithm applied to a proof. Ideas like this are studied formally in proof theory. Is there a reason for deleting it, beyond a crazed desire to delete content? Gene Ward Smith 04:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no connection between this article and The Book. Melchoir 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's exactly the same connection as there is to the Rubik's cube. Of course, the shortest string in, for example, Peano arithemtic which proves something might not be something that would make you call it one from The Book, but there would likely be a connection. Gene Ward Smith 05:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep JeffBurdges 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a worthwhile article. Runcorn 19:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, while the article may need improvement, the term (and meaning) is estabilished AFAIK. LjL 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid concept, references in literature (I have added one to article), well on the way to becoming a useful article. Gandalf61 08:41, 16 May 2006 (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.