Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricomplex numbers


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Tricomplex numbers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



These three new article are WP:OR, see WT:WPM D.Lazard (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- I agree with the nominator. This is clearly OR. Reyk  YO!  14:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- I agree with the nominator also. The situation is exacerbated somewhat by unconstructive editing on the part of supporter(s) of these articles. But that aside, OR is a clear enough reason to clear these up. Rschwieb (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Delete all. As per nom.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Amended. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write)  16:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete due to WP:OR and as such failing notability as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR, agree on notability failing issue as well. Simranpreet singh (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've corrected the AFD links on the two co-nominated articles. Since they were redlinked only for a few hours, there's no need to fuss with separating the noms or anything. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all. There are a handful of papers listed in Google scholar that cite the main reference here, but they're mostly also by combinations of the same authors, so I don't see the in-depth coverage by multiple independent groups needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Save. As the creator of these articles, I only want to mention that the article "Tricomplex numbers" and "Tetrabrot" are not my current personal research. For the article Tricomplex numbers, this a well documented subject and you may find many references, e.g. G.B. Price "An Introduction to Multicomplex numbers and functions". For the article Tetrabrot, the results come mainly from the two following research papers: "A Generalized Mandelbrot Set for Bicomplex Numbers" from D. Rochon in 2000 and "On a Bicomplex Distance Estimation for the Tetrabrot" from É. Martineau and D. Rochon in 2004. These scientific articles are not my personal research. I would appreciate that some solutions are proposed to improve the articles or some solutions that may help to save them. Best regards -Mathopo (talk) 14:45, 16 november 2017 (HAE) — Mathopo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete all – (a) lack of notability; (b) lack of merit
 * The name "tricomplex numbers" seems to be more commonly used for the three-dimensional algebra over the reals (as in https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0008120) than for C⊕C⊕C ⊕C, which appears to be the topic of the article. All algebraic constructions over a direct sum of rings decompose, allowing each part to be analyzed in isolation, and are uninteresting mathematically.  Price only briefly mentions them.  Only the simplest examples of such direct sums, such as the bicomplex numbers and split-complex numbers, seem to have any notability or instructive value.
 * The tricomplex multibrot set should accordingly decompose as the Cartesian product of three four  Mandelbrot sets, making it uninteresting.
 * The tetrabrot article does not seem to give enough to even understand exactly what it is talking about, or why it might be interesting.
 * —Quondum 04:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks to be the direct sum of four copies, C⊕C⊕C⊕C &mdash; which is still not interesting, and so the "tricomplex multibrot set" is the Cartesian product of four Mandelbrot sets &mdash; which is, also, still not interesting. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, corrected in my comment above and below from three to four copies. —Quondum 03:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * delete all. I had considered nominating one or other of these myself when it appeared in the list of recently created maths articles, but did not have time to look into it. I did find a previous AfD, Articles for deletion/Tricomplex number, which may or may not be on the same topic. But on their own merits these do not belong on WP.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 11:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I nominated that other one, but I don't remember it well enough to tell how similar they are. Reyk  YO!  11:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That article was apparently about an algebra isomorphic to R⊕C, and this one to C⊕C⊕C ⊕C . —Quondum 12:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Save ALL. Theses pages are a wonderful tool for everybody who loves fractals. Not only mathematicians, but also artists, philosophers and computer scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.172.51 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)  —  45.72.172.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Save ALL. The informations on this page is relevant, accurate and can be found elsewhere in the literature:, RaphGL (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — RaphGL (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete all per Quondum and David Eppstein. The Lantoine et al. (2012) and Reid et al. (2013) papers mentioned above are about multicomplex numbers and do not make the case that the "tricomplex numbers" are an interesting special case, or that the "tetrabrot" is an interesting object. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. The tricomplex space considered by G.B. Price and this Wiki page is isomorphic to C⊕C⊕C⊕C not C⊕C⊕C. The number of principal 3D slices of the multicomplex Mandelbrot set is then maximal in the tricomplex space with all the possible combinations of imaginary and hyperbolic units.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.209.3.30 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)  — 132.209.3.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Save ALL. I completely agree with the last comment, moreover the Tetrabrot is the special 3D slice where each sides of the set is the Mandelbrot set itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.169.78.4 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)  — 142.169.78.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete all for violating core policy NO Original Research, content undersouced not shown to meet GNG no evidence of its importance &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Save. I'm a computer scientist, not sure to understand the concept of direct sum and other math stuff, but the quaternionic Mandelbrot set, the Mandelbulb and the Tetrabrot are amazing 3D Fractals. For us, they can be used in virtual reality and video games... For ex. in the Disney movie Big Hero 6, the emotional climax takes place in the middle of a wormhole, which is represented by the stylized interior of a Mandelbulb. Please don't remove this page !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.242.232 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)  — 70.50.242.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * First, we are not talking about deleting the article Mandelbulb. Second, the above comment plagiarizes the "Uses in media" section of that article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Everything in the related Wiki articles are referred to scientific published articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.209.3.30 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)  — 132.209.3.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Save. As a programmer, I'd like to thank the author (Mathopo) of the "Tetrabrot" and the "Tricomplex numbers" pages. The current work is indeed an excellent basis for fractal exploration. If I understand well, tricomplex numbers are a particular case of multicomplex numbers, for wich the Wikipida page is already accepted since 10 years ago. I disagree that the "Tricomplex numbers" page is unuseful and redundant, because it shows a detailed multiplication tables for tricomplex numbers, which is usefull for a non multicomplex expert. --ComputedMathArts (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * this account made their first edit to this AfD, 29 minutes after account creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammarpad (talk • contribs)


 * Save. Some users seem to evaluate the merit of these articles solely based on their lack of personal interest, which can never be considered as an objective argument. Moreover, the tricomplex numbers and their use in generating tridimensional fractals like the "Tetrabrot" have been studied and results have been published in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals as Fractals (World Scientific) and the like. As mentioned above, these articles include no content which contravene WP's NOR policy.66.130.133.22 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — 66.130.133.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Although it is probably obvious to any admin anyhow, I nevertheless like to point out explicitly that so far all save opinions stem from IPs or freshly created accounts. Once this AfDs is closed those freshly created accounts might need a reminder of WP policies.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Closure Considering that none of the Wikipedia rules have been violated by the author (Mathopo) of the following Wiki pages: Tetrabrot and Tricomplex numbers. Considering that Wikipedia has been informed yesterday morning about a legal procedure related to some assumptions in this public room. I propose the end of this talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.209.3.30 (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)  — 132.209.3.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete all, per nom. OR, failing GNG. -- Begoon 13:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Closure There are no useful arguments in the last comment. I support the end of the talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.169.78.239 (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)  — 142.169.78.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well, thanks for turning up, but that really isn't how this works. -- Begoon 18:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. As there are several new faces here, a few comments on the way we operate is in order. An AfD discussion such as this is intended to determine whether or not an article meets the Wikipedia guidelines and how the article should be dealt with. Any action should be determined by a consensus of the contributors to this discussion. These discussions normally take a minimum of seven days to ensure that enough various viewpoints are presented. Calls for closure by one side of a disputed discussion after just two days of being listed are quite uncalled for. Other comments, such as threatening legal action or criticizing other editors expressions are not considered to be good faith efforts to achieve consensus and actually work against it. The discussion needs to be centered on the Wikipedia guidelines and not on our personal opinions of the value of the article, so the comments that are of most value are those that reference those guidelines.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment First of all, personal interest can't motivate a decision of that importance. If we follow the logic behind the comment above, we should also delete the bicomplex wikipedia page and the multicomplex wikipedia page since these concepts are not interesting... But my goal is not not go there. Also, as it was mentioned above, those articles are based on scientific reliable ressources. Finally, if some suggestions can be made to correct the articles so we can save those articles, you are welcomed to apply your suggestion. Mathopo (talk) 20:25, 18 novembre 2017 (HAE)
 * No comment on what can or can't be done to save the article/s in question, but "personal interest" has precisely nothing to do with the deletion or otherwise of an article, as the comment to which you are responding makes very clear. Best practice is to respond to the concerns which are being raised, rather than your favourite strawmen instead. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Save The blame is especially related to the use of Original Research (OR). However, on the page where the concept of OR is explained, we can read the following: "Rewriting source material in your own words, while substantially retaining the meaning of the references, is not considered to be original research". That is exactly what is done in the article Tricomplex numbers and so the allegation are more or less valid. As a consequence, this is the same for the other two articles Tetrabrot and Tricomplex Multibrot set. Mathopo (talk) 20:35, 18 novembre 2017 (HAE)
 * Please, read WP:OR further. In the section WP:PSTS, a paragraph "Policy" contains " base an entire article on primary sources". In other words, an article for which no secondary source exists is considered, by Wikipedia, as original research, and therefore not acceptable. Here, this is enforced by a WP:Conflict of interest: author(s) of the Wikipedia articles are also authors of the primary sources. D.Lazard (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here, I just want to understand with a concrete situation. For example, if someone from around the world that write a Wikipedia article on a subject that has no secondary reference (like a book) excepted the primary sources (like the paper from the creator of the concepts or the theory), his article will be clasified, by Wikipedia, as WP:OR? Mathopo (talk) 22:25, 19 november 2017 (HAE)


 * Delete all A pile of OR -- and unremarkable OR at that. The legal threat makes it even sillier.  E Eng  05:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment A quick check of Mathscinet for "tricomplex" (anywhere) indicates that the commutative and associative 8-dimensonal tricomplex algebra has been studied and books/articles published which treat the subject. It is true that the algebra of tricomplex numbers is less notable and far less studied than the non-commutative non-associative 8-dimensional algebra of octonions or Cayley numbers, which plays a significant role in mathematics (particularly the theory of Jordan algebras). Writing that the subject of tricomplex numbers is WP:OR, however, is simply wrong: the subject may be dull and/or uninteresting, but it is certainly not original research. The other neologisms above, invented by researchers from the University of Quebec—puns on Mandelbrot, etc—appear in published works but have not been more widely adopted and as such are unnotable: the label WP:OR is inappropriate. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not the topic that is OR. The article does have sourcing problems, which are addressed at WP:OR, and which should not be ignored.  —Quondum 15:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In mathematics, WP:OR would mean that a wikipedia editor is creating mathematical content which cannot be sourced to published articles or textbooks. Of course it is preferable to have content drawn from textbooks, but many times that is not possible. Systoles of surfaces is an example of an article where a mathematician (Katzmik) has summarised his own research in an article based on published papers. There could possibly have been a conflict of interest (I don't think so), but Katzmik was not guilty of creating original research on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Further comment The editing history statistics of Tetrabrot shows a large number of edits by IPs located either in the Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres or nearby (Laval) as well as edits by Mathopo. All the research originates in exactly these localities. The nature of the editing suggests that all these contributions were made by the same user. Regardless of the merits of what has been added—it unfortunately seems unnotable—the manner of editing and the appearance of similar IPs at the AfD (one of which has been blocked) suggests that Mathopo is very closely related to one or more authors of the papers on multicomplex dynamical systems involved in this AfD. As such there seems to be a conflict of interest. Mathsci (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all, possibly salt, and possibly refer to the board of ethics at the relevant university for the sock/meat-puppetry. This is self-promotion and publication of original research which is not otherwise notable. There is obvious quacking in many of the "Save" votes.  The tri-complex articles are clearly not notable and serve only a promotional purpose; the tetrabrot article might be on something notable, but is WP:TNT worthy in its current state, and I can't easily find any reliable sources that could repair the article (both Google search and EBSCOHost have nothing useful). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * frijoles Has anyone called in the cu or done spi? Thanks L3X1 (distænt write)  18:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No need, this will be over soon.  E Eng  18:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * K. L3X1 (distænt write)  21:43, 20 November 2017 (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.