Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fractional electrodynamics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

add to this deletion debate Just some references, no actual content. Dori | Talk 17:57, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Some of that research needs to be boiled down, before there's an encylopedia article here. Charles Matthews 18:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Not just references, they're all to papers by one person. -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:17, Apr 7, 2004
    • The research has been "boiled down", for instance in the book "Frontiers in Electromagnetics". The point of posting the references, even though there is yet no content to the page, is to provide access to information. With such access, people can learn. Also, they can more readily fill in the content of the page. These are some of the benefits of the current page. In what ways are these benefits counter-weighted? Kevin Baas 18:39, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But it doesn't provide access. How can a non-IEEE member view them? Niteowlneils 14:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, it's not an article, that's enough of a counter-weight for anything. People see the link, and it's in blue, they go there expecting to see some content, and all they get is references. If there was at least some content, the references could go in the talk page. Dori | Talk 19:17, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps once could simply put the references in the talk pages, and leave the article as stub? The link would still be in blue, admittedly. (A (very significant) drawback of this is that people won't see the references.) I don't feel myself competent enough in the subject to write a sufficiently technical introduction. Unless a brief non-formal overview would be sufficient? My contention is that the references are valuable to those interested, who perhaps might from them write said missing article. This is better than nothing, which is what you are suggesting. Kevin Baas 23:41, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Bensaccount 23:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. Mr. Baas, having presented us with fractional probability, fractional paradigm, and fractional calculus already, now attempts to hose us once more. Denni 00:01, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)
    • Well, let's not be hasty. Fractional calculus is an established subject. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or move fractional electrodynamics to a page under User:Kevin baas. It's not clear to me that an article can be written on this topic; there appear to be exactly two people interested in it. One of them (Nader Engheta) is an academic at a reputable school (U Penn). However, if interest is limited to just a few people, it doesn't need an article here, even though it may be valid research. Maybe in a few years it will become obvious the topic deserves such treatment; WP is in no hurry. Til then I see no harm in keeping the references as a user page. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Page deletion is also OK with me. Updated vote. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:47, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC))
    • I don't know if this comment was more positive or negative. In any case, on "people interested in it", I feel the need to clear up a few distortions here. Firstly, Nader Engheta is a highly decorated professor and an internationally respected authority on electromagnetics. He is a Guggenheim Fellow, an IEEE Third Millennium Medalist, and a Fellow of IEEE. Secondly, there are clearly many people interested in the subject, such as his students, the IEEE society, editors and readers of EE Journals, and attendants of the URSI International Symposium, to name but a few. Kevin Baas 10:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • All that would make it easier to explain what is going on here, no? And make it interesting? Just saying 'authority' isn't anything much. The current article is a content nullity. For example, it doesn't enable me to decide whether it might be about fractional charges, or fractional calculus applied somehow. I doubt whether the 'keep' votes here are any clearer on that than I am. Charles Matthews 11:22, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • I find it ironic that you titled your revision "Huffing and puffing." You see, most people would construe that as being derogatory to the comment it responds to, which clearly involves no "huffing and pufffing" - it simply presents the facts to those interested in this dicussion, who may have been misled by Wile's earlier comments. In contrast, your response could well be construed as "huffing and puffing". It presents no facts or logic, but is rather purely rhetorical. (Is electromagnetics about elecricity, magnetics, or an application of mathematics?) It has the tone of someone who is irritated and reacts to this irritation by "huffing and pufffing". Kevin Baas 18:02, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • The irritation is because the page is posted without even an attempt to define the topic. That makes it a classic walled garden: no one can add to or edit the page, because only you know what the topic is. Uncommented lists of references have no place here. Charles Matthews 13:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • So you agree with what I have said, regarding huffing and puffing, then? Strange then, that you worded this like a counter-argument. I think you could communicate better if you made a sharper distinction between topics. (btw, if you look at the page now, you will discover that it now contains a brief overview of the topic, as some people have kindly suggested.) I appreciate the fact that you have finally stated your contention. The tone, however, is quite sharp. A more "formal" tone would be more conducive. In regards to "walled garden": there are no walls. People can add to or edit the page as they so desire. The references refer to books and papers that will give them ample understanding of the topic. That's why they are there. Cheers. Kevin Baas 17:31, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • By my count, you have now added: one non sequitur, one new undefined term (fractional differential geometry), and three red links. There is no reason that any theory on fractals must use fractional calculus; the fact that you assert this reinforces the impression that you munge similar-sounding concepts together fairly randomly. Charles Matthews 18:33, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • That's quite a bloated inference there. It seems that you're not a fan of the Minimum description length. If you actually think I confuse terms that start with the same letter, you should be wondering how I can speak in complete sentences. Fractional calculus enables one to take integrals (and do calculus) over fractal regions. Although this is not always neccessary in the study of fractals, it becomes neccessary as soon as you deal with the dynamics of fractal entities, inasmuch as current theories of dynamics are based on calculus.
        • In regards to fractional differential geometry, you will notice that I did not make a link of that phrase, but I gave two references. I am sure that anyone who knows what differential geometry and fractional calculus are can put the two together into a meaningful picture of "fractional differential geometry". The two references are there to elucidate this idea. They include such things as fractional differential forms, fractional exterior derivatives, and a fractional curl operator, among others differential geometric constructions. Mathematicians will quickly recognize these concepts and possibly appreciate their generalization to fractal dimensional spaces. This topic is actually born from the research of at least five mathematicians. (The two not mentioned are Oldham and Spanier.) However, I don't think it meets the threshold, which is why I did not make it a link.
        • In the future, please refrain from criticizing what you don't understand. And please, stop filling this page with your anger. It is not helpfull to anyone here. Kevin Baas 22:28, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Kevin, you are quite wrong to say anyone who knows what differential geometry and fractional calculus are can put the two together into a meaningful picture of "fractional differential geometry". That is demonstrably not the case. You also are confusing fractional calculus with measure theory on fractals: completely different topics. This is misleading, to say the least. You would do everyone a favour, including yourself, if you admitted that your posting was premature, and that you are not elucidating anything by carrying on postulating fractional differential forms etc.. etc. . The criterion here is quite clear: exposition of encyclopedic material, no current research. I am calling you out on this, because Wikipedia articles go round the world, and should not contain disinformation. Charles Matthews 05:45, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • I concede that I was over-generalizing when I said that any person knowledgeable in these two fields could make the connection.
Let me try again to communicate in regards to fractional calculus and measure theory on fractals. When I said "Although this is not always neccessary in the study of fractals", I was alluding to the fact that measure theory on fractals does not in any way involve fractional calculus, and explictly stated the logical relationship of inclusion, as a Venn diagram might represent. By "study of fractals" I was refering to measure theory on fractals, as well as other studies. By this, I made a clear division between measure theory on fractals and fractional calculus. I hope I am being explicit enough here. I would be dissapointed if I was again misconstrued. For clarity and redundancy, let me restate it in your language, using a simple logical modifier: I am not confusing fractional calculus with measure theory on fractals.
Let us examine the paragraph more: "Fractional calculus enables one to take integrals (and do calculus) over fractal regions." -This statement is demonstratably true and unambiguously worded. "...it becomes neccessary [to use fractional calculus] as soon as you deal with the dynamics of fractal entities, inasmuch as current theories of dynamics are based on calculus." Notice the word "dynamics", rather than the word "measure". Also, notice the logical contingencies in the sentence. In the future, please read more carefully.
On a related note, notice the reference given by Niteowlniels, below: [1]. Notice that some of the papers involve the use of fractional calculus in conjunctinon with our old friend. I can also give you some book references if you are interested in learning about the relation of fractional calculus to fractals. (Also, notice the variety of authors.) Kevin Baas 21:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In regards to "admitting": I am stating my assesments. (Most) other people state their assesments here and vote accordingly. Some of them, like Decumanus and Cribcage make sound and valid arguments. Mostly, people try to avoid empty rhetoric and aggressive verbal assaults. I admit the strenght of some of the arguments in favor of deletion, esp. those made by the two mentioned above. FWIW, I think Decumanus makes the best argument for deletion. I do not admit that this page should be deleted, as that would be premature. I await the conclusion of the vote and accept it's outcome. Kevin Baas 21:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, if only because I was interested in fractional calculus when I read it, and they seem to be intimately related. If interest is limited to just a few people, it might not need to be an article here. The topic isn't of regional or no interest; it's just specialized. Part of the value of Wikipedia is that he has articles on obscure and/or specialized subjects. I know I've learnt a lot from it in areas about which I doubt more than a tenth of a percent of people care. --130.39.154.50 03:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete (William M. Connolley 16:18, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)) Just a list of refs. "fractional electrodynamics" gets no google hits apart from wiki. Which suggests that Electromagnetism should be cleaned up...
  • Limited interest isn't a valid reason for deletion. The fact that an article might not be "necessary" is, in part, what separates Wikipedia from Britannica. Allowing minority interests to contribute their passions gains us valuable contributors. Having said that, the current article lacks content. Revise or delete. Cribcage 18:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inclusion would set too low a threshold for inclusion of scientific theories into WP, to the point where fleshing out such articles would encroach too much into the realm of original research. If this were included, anything with a few papers behind it would become fair game for inclusion. Certainly the threshold in this matter is debatable, but I feel this one fails the test, based on its newness, its non-notoreity, and its near complete association with a single investigator. -- Decumanus | Talk 19:44, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Given that I haven't actually voted... delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 20:50, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Lean towards delete. Possibly valid topic, but all refs are by a single author. Also, no Web refs. Plus, may be copyvio[2]. Niteowlneils 14:27, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If we keep, we may see this [3] (found via search for the top subject paper "On Fractional Calculus and Fractional Multipoles in Electromagnetism") as an "article". Niteowlneils 14:27, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Note (prompted by that) that we already have a fractal antenna article. Charles Matthews 16:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that this topic has anything to do with fractal antennae. -- Decumanus | Talk 16:48, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My point, really. The whole sham fractional paradigm agenda behind this would probably want to include it. Fractional calculus applied in EM theory ≠ anything to do with fractals - but persuade Kevin of that ... Charles Matthews 17:59, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I looked over one of the papers and some of the abstracts. It's obvious that indeed it has absolutely nothing to do with fractal antennas, which are antennas with fractal geometries, the solutions of which are calculated using the usual Maxwell's Equations (with nonfractional derivatives). My impression of fractional electrodynamics is that it is at a very primitive stage. Basically what the few papers have done is shown that: (1) you can define the div and curl operations with fractional derivatives (not a big surprise); (2) it seems to be mathematically selfconsistent at first glance as applied to fields (so far, so good); and (3) it reduces to the normal Maxwell's equations in the limit of non-fractal derivatives (this last one is actually the first thing a physicist would want to know). Other than that, it is very preliminary and I see nothing as it applied to specific phenomenon, nor do I see any mention of why this theory would need to be adopted. This last point is not a fault of the investigators, but simply a reflection of the early stage of this topic, during the requisite mathematical prodding and poking to make sure it doesn't have serious flaws even its in most basic solutions. That being said, I've mentioned before that I feel this topic is below the threshold I would advocate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Certainly fractional derivatives deserve an article, but fractional electromagnetism is still in the realm of mathematical speculation, not well-defined theory, at this point. I would venture to guess that even the original investigator would agree with me on this point. -- Decumanus | Talk 18:18, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Regarding fractal antennas: notice the papers explicitly about fractal antennas, notice also the use of fractional calculus in these papers, which is fundamental and neccessary for the specific aspects of fractal antennas that they discuss. Let Charles Matthews note that, in regards fractional calculus and differential geometry, Decumanus considers the extension of div and curl operators to fractional derivatives intuitively obvious. This is not so much a "theory" but a logical extension of electrodynamics to arbitrary dimension. Insofar as there exists fractal sets (which is ontologically indisputable), this so-called "theory" needs to be "adopted" as soon as one in any way "needs" to work with electrodynamics on fractal sets. Whether one at any point "needs" to do this is completely a matter of opinion. Kevin Baas 00:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Let Kevin note that if he says anyone, that is logically distinct from saying someone. Anyway, this comment shows that Kevin still holds to untenable and muddled thoughts about this fractional stuff, which is light-years from being up to WP standards. Some of us have been round the block a few times with these evasions (still waiting for a concise definition). Charles Matthews 09:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Dude, charles, I think I cleared the someone/anyone up in the response to your comments above, when I conceded that I over-generalized. Did you read that? I can only assume that you didn't. And haven't I told you before to quite with the empty rhetoric and aggressive verbal assaults? This isn't personal. Don't make an entire comment solely about "x person is stupid because he gets z and y confused, notwithstanding the fact that he has multiple times made lucid distinctions between the two and explicitly stated the difference." Perhaps if you keep at your attempts to put words in my mouth, than you can say whatever you want about what I supposedly say. But as much as you would apparently like to throw me into disrepute, noone here is dumb enough to give weight to your repulsive anger-driven commments. You would be doing yourself a favor if you calmed down before you make another assanine comment. Kevin Baas
Face it Kevin, you don't know the mathematics, you don't know the physics, you have been driving a dodgy personal agenda into WP for long enough. Please look at Wikipedia:Cleanup for detailed work needed on the fractional calculus pages. As for empty rhetoric and aggressive verbal assaults, this has characterised most of your talk page contributions I have seen. Charles Matthews 12:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In regard to "Face it Kevin, you don't know the mathematics, you don't know the physics" - please don't tell me that you construe this as a logical statement, and not merely an insult (and another assanine comment). This is not the place for that.
I agree that work is needed on the fractional calculus pages. I have been soliciting people to contribute. I'm glad that you share my concern. What does this have to do with fractional electrodynamics?
Your next statement is phenomenological in character, and thus let us let empirical evidence be the judge of it. In any case, the comment of yours that I am responding to does not express to me your willingness to discontinue your annoying personal attacks, which I cannot imagine is helpful to or appreciated by anyone here. Do you intend to discontinue your attacks on me now, or must I request mediation? Kevin Baas 13:31, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have better things to do than bandy words with you, certainly. Mediation is fine, if you want it. Bear in mind your past history, at Talk:Hypercomputation for example, before invoking it. The point would be to improve Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 13:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I recall that page. We had an argument over the definition of a hypercomputer, and admittedly, it got pretty inflammed. Eventually I realized that we were talking about two different things. We must have gathered our definitions from different sources, so I split the topic, resolving the discrepency. I had made some uncivil remarks on that talk page, and I apologize for them.
That is all irrelevant, though. The issue is this page. (two wrongs don't make a right) I do not wish to go to mediation, I have better things to do as well. I have publicly (here) apologized for my offences on talk:hypercomputation. I ask you for a public apology for your offences on this page. Then I'm sure that we can both agree that there is no more to discuss, and in the future refrain from bothering people with our bander. Kevin Baas 20:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nothing to apologise for. The extremely patient User:Pde eventually called your ramblings a 'ridiculous pseudo-argument'. Around then I sent him an email saying you were wasting his time. You compounded your ignorance - anyone can see how it went. You didn't know what you were talking about then. You don't now, and have learnt nothing from all that, it seems. I'm just pointing this all out, in terms. Charles Matthews 21:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I retract my apology. If you do not apologize, I will request mediation. Kevin Baas 00:40, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I always assumed it might come to this - see http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January/009974.html, reply http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January/009977.html, for my seeking advice about the 'Baas' issue three months ago. Charles Matthews 07:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am beginning to see how this might be connected to fractal antennae theory. Basically my guess is that if you have such a geometry, then you would want to solve the exterior boundary value problem for the near field using a Laplacian in a fractional dimensional form. Would you say this is correct? -- Decumanus | Talk 22:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Admittedly, I'm not versed in the technical details, but what you say seems reasonable. If one intends to deal with the antenna as a genuine fractal rather than a pre-fractal, one must ipso facto deal with the antenna as an R-dimensional object extended in space (rather than a 2 or 3 dimensional object). This requires that, when discussing the differential geometric aspects of such an antenna, one use fractional differential operators. An example of this is, ofcourse, the Laplacian in a fractional dimensional form when discussing the divergence of a field.
Here's a related reference on the page that Niteowlniels pointed out: Onufriyenko, V.M.; "The differ-integral theory of fractal antennas", Antenna Theory and Techniques, 2003. IVth International Conference on , Volume: 1 , 9 - 12 Sept. 2003 , pp. 107 -109 -- which I will copy to the page, which will probably be deleted soon anyways. In any case, I hope I have been of some help, and I hope you find this interesting. Kevin Baas 01:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  • Delete. Obscure scientific topic. "Fractional electrodynamics" returns Wikipedia+1 other hit on google. Andris 22:01, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/t/Wikipedia%7EVotes_for_deletion_Fractional_electrodynamics_7b78.html"