Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-integer representation


 * 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The result was   keep as withdrawn by nominator. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-integer representation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

(Retracted) Article has no sources and appears to be WP:original research, only one such system (golden ratio base) appears to have been studied by WP:reliable sources and it already has its own article. — sligocki (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This would seem to be an AfD that requires expert assistance. I'm unaware of the best procedure for getting the attention of the mathematics editors but if someone passing through knows it could they jump up and down and wave their hands on the relevant pages? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I posted a notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I think that would be the right place. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A significant portion of §4.1 in Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming is devoted to non-integer bases. This easily establishes their notability. Le Docteur (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also this American Scientist article discusses base e somewhat. Le Docteur (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Studied more seriously in . Le Docteur (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * More recent article, with literature review: Le Docteur (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Various example bases (with emphasis on the golden ratio, though) are considered in . Le Docteur (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have added the above references to the article, and expanded the article to include some content from these references.  There is still a lot of work to be done, though. Le Docteur (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Le Docteur. I believe it's best to merge the article into Non-standard positional numeral systems, but since the topic is clearly notable that's not something that needs to be decided by this AfD. Hans Adler 06:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The references provided by Le Docteur convince me the subject is sufficiently notable to have an article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward keep, myself. I've only read about phinary and Knuth's quarter-imaginary base, but I imagine that with the references above we can dig out more.  Also, it might help prevent the creep of many permastubs on their own non-integer bases -- they can just get a section here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep "e" is likely the best-known example, as Le Docteur points out. Collect (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was also of this impression, but I am having difficulty digging up references to the effect. I know that expansions in the base e have some special "ergodic" properties that make them particularly significant, but I can't find any references that state this clearly.  Any help would be appreciated. Le Docteur (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I always thought of this as a cute recreational math topic. I'm actually surprised to learn that there are several applications (the only one I ever heard of was in information theory; supposedly base e is the "most efficient" in some sense that wasn't explained); Le Docteur's efforts above demonstrate, I think, that the subject is notable even among professional researchers. Ozob (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I retract my nomination. This has clearly been studied. Thanks for all the work referencing and improving the article. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2009 (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.