Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rannow's Theorem


 * 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  CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rannow&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No google hits. That could mean only that this name for the theorem is not commonplace. But the proposition seems silly: one could say that the average value of a continuous function on an interval about a point approaches the value of the function at that point as the interval shrinks. But that does not involve this strange iteration of the function, whereby one integrates over an interval in the range rather than in the domain. That looks like a wholly pointless complication&mdash;just camouflage and razzle-dazzle so that the inattentive reader will not notice that any worthwhile content can be stated more simply. The article neglects to mention that the whole thing works only if the relevant part of the range is also in the domain. It also neglects any hypothesis of continuity. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced. It seems a very unusual theorem with the same function appearing as the integrand and the limits. Good sources would defiantly be needed for such a strange result. --Salix (talk): 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced, and it's a rare theorem in real analysis which assumes that an element of the range (A) is in the domain of the function, except for explicit fixed point theorems. (The fact that I never heard of it also weighs against it.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, incorrectly stated, probably OR. Ozob (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I respect the input of the above experts in the field. Additionally, in the context of a suspected neologism or hoax, the fact that the article was the creator's first and only contribution is very often a bad sign. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax or clumsy OR. This is claimed to be a "key theorem in calculus", which it is not, and the explanation of what it is useful for doesn't make any sense. --Uncia (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. No hits in Google, Google scholar, or Google books. Salih  ( talk ) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. Paul August &#9742; 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article reflects somebody's discovery, in my view. I would not be surprised if this is the case, partially because of the use of "key theorem". If this is not the case, there must be some calculus book for which this result is a theorem, but since it seems that there is no (famous) mathematician by the name of "Rannow", this is unlikely. Furthermore, in my (limited) knowledge of calculus texts, I do not recall having seen a theorem with statement similar to this one. The theorem is also incorrect for more reasons than one. -- PS T  08:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - OR or hoax. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 8 July 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.