Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algebraical quantity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE and REDIRECT to Expression (mathematics). -Splashtalk 21:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Algebraical quantity

This article makes no sense to me. The list 1.,2.,3. seems to describe polynomials, but later on the article claims that this is something different. 1,2,3 do not allow division, but later on division is allowed. Aleph4 09:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

5 days later: The article still makes no sense to me, but redirect to Expression (mathematics) seems to be better than deletion. -- Aleph4 10:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I think the distinction being made with polynomial is in part that between an algebraic expression and a function; but this is all very old-fashioned, and very confused. Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I agree with Aleph4, I think that first the author of the article should have been contacted to see whether this issue can be cleared up. I copied the comment to Talk:Algebraical quantity, User talk:219.64.184.191, and User talk:219.64.184.180. The same author has written the related articles compound expression, simple expression, and trinomial; it seems like he/she is trying to build up a classification of mathematical expressions. I first want to see whether we can establish contact with the author; if not, I think the article (and the other I mentioned) can be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks, I had not thought of that. I have added a request for input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology. -- Aleph4 13:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, this RFC was what brought me here, thanks for that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete; hardly any google points for "algebraical quantity". I feel like I should be able to understand an article about something this simple, but I think it is very confused. — brighterorange (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it's verified by the math geeks responding to aforementioned RFC. — Phil Welch 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote yet. I want to see what Michael Hardy says. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is not clearly nonsense, but it seems to give a rather narrow definition of an idea that could admit a much broader one, and it is not so clear that the concept of "algebraical quantity" is really needed. "Everyone" needs to know what terms are (things that get added or subtracted) and what factors are (things that get multiplied) and what polynomials and rational functions and various other sorts of expressions are, but I don't see any clear need for this concept. The word "algebraical", as opposed to "algebraic", seems archaic, and I suspect it came from a somewhat out-of-date book — maybe published in 1840 or so? Michael Hardy 01:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    Algebraical continued to be used for a while; this reads to me like the first attempts at universal algebra around 1880. And, oh yes, 'Redirect as below. Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete per Michael Hardy. "-al" is redundant, and the concept isn't useful. JPD 14:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I find this: "like terms" are defined as "Multiples of the same algebraic quantity. Hence if terms are not of the same algebraic quantity they are unlike terms." For example, n, 2n, 0.5n, 4n, are like terms and thus presumably are "of the same algebraic quantity" while 2, n, n2 and n3 are unlike terms and presumably of "different algebraic quantity." In other words, "algebraic quantity" is the answer to the question "what is it that is 'alike' between 'like terms?'" This resonates with me, because I think that in physics—specifically, in the context of units, dimensions, and metrology—"quantity" has a similar meaning. Feet and inches express the same "quantity", namely length, while feet and acres do not. I think. I could have that garbled. So, ok... my vote is...
  • Mark for cleanup and move to Algebraic quantity. Put a note on the Talk page linking to this discussion. If nobody can make anything sensible out of it after a few months, nominate it for deletion again. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace by redirect to Expression (mathematics). This seems preferable to the solution proposed by Dpbsmith which would leave an unintelligible article on Wikipedia for months; a merge is not possible since I would not know what to merge. It seems to me that the website found by Dpbsmith means something else by algebraic quantity than the author of the article, who would presumably consider n and 2n as different algebraic quantities. The definition of mathematical expressions and its representation is crucially important in computer algebra (and probably also in other disciplines that I'm less familiar with like logic), and there is an article waiting to be written here, but it should not be called algebraic quantity or algebraical quantity. By the way, there are also articles on algebraic function and algebraic number; both seem quite different from what the author had in mind. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that Expression (mathematics) is the best place for the concept the author seems to be getting at. I think it is actually similar to the concept used on the website mentioned - it wasn't saying that terms such as n and 2n were "of the same algebraic quantity", but that they were both (scalar) multiples of the same algebraic quantity n. JPD 12:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment if you're going to redirect, you don't need to delete. Just replace the article with

#REDIRECT[[Expression (mathematics)]] --Trovatore 04:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect for now. If someone later wishes to write a better article and put it at "algebraical quantity", it's fine by me. --05:10, 20 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.