Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeration


 * 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 Delete.  Dei zio  talk 14:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeration
Neologism. The term zeration apparently first appears in a 2004 paper, which is published on a webforum and a website run by a Rotary club. The article zeration (written by User:Rubcov) traces the concept back to a 1989 paper by a certain Rubtsov. No further hits in Google.

Additionally, there are concerns about the validity of the article. User:Arthur Rubin wrote:
 * "I'd give it thumbs down, in regard the &Delta; numbers. That is just wrong, even if referenced in the paper. The rest is more-or-less accurate, although I believe it falis WP:N.
 * As for hyperexponentials, my first paper (in 1966) references an earlier paper by Donner and Tarski which discusses hyperexponentials on the ordinal numbers. I doubt the primacy of the 1987 paper."

I'm not sure this is what Arthur is referring to, but the definition of the &Delta; operation is incomplete. It is said to be the inverse of zeration, in the sense that
 * $$ a \circ b = c \implies c \Delta b = a. $$

However, we have both $$ 1 \circ 3 = 4 $$ and $$ 2 \circ 3 = 4 $$, so what is $$ 4 \Delta 3 \, $$ ? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * delete, I trust Jitse and Arthur. -lethe talk [ +] 09:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I trust Lethe. Stephen B Streater 09:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Inverse operation is not well defined, and meaning of $$\Delta$$ is not clear to me either - is it a unary or binary operator? Other quibbles could be resolved in editing. Stephen B Streater 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Arthur Rubin and Jitse. Reyk  YO!  10:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Looks like author is spamming all wikis: I've just nominated for deletion the same article on ruwiki. Max S em 11:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Seems to be correct, but probably is a neologism. Beno1000 12:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete immediately! As: 1. Wikipedia not a place for the information on a new scientific nomenclature (Neologism). 2. Wikipedia not a place for scientific controversies and information absent in the classical encyclopedias. 3. It information from official printed scientific works, which are not submitted in Google. It really can break the copyrights. 4. Because so thinks dear MaxSem. From which I have learned, the publication of paper in 2 languages is equated to SPAM. Russian variant is already removed. Rubcov (Author) 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Removed"? What's that, then? $) Max S em 15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * MaxSem, I think he is being sarcastic, its hard to tell. Anyways, I can not read Russian but according to an online translator, the article is a candidate for removal there as well. --  127 . * . * . 1  18:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I keep reminding people, you can't improve an article if it doesn't exist. This article has some problems, but they look to be ones that can be fixed. Gene Ward Smith 23:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivial, original research, and a neologism. See WP:NEO. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the cited paper is actually published anywhere (other than on a website), then I would change my vote to a keep.  As it stands, there is no published reference for the term "zeration". Samw 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What about mentioning the idea in the Ackermann function article? Gene Ward Smith


 * Exactly what do you want to mention? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest saying we can start the Ackermann function off with the following, and give the definition, and then say some people are calling that "zeration", but this may not be a standard mathematical term. Gene Ward Smith 10:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: But it isn't the Ackermann function. Stephen B Streater 11:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (via edit conflict) You mean saying that $$A(0,{\cdot})$$ is the same as zeration? But the former function takes one argument, and zeration is a binary operation. Furthermore, they do not quite agree since zeration has the strange definition $$n\circ n = n+2$$. But I don't have Ackermann function on my watchlist, so I won't notice if you sneak something in :) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:32, 15 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.