Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetralectic constant

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. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tetralectic constant

Tetralectic constant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Utter blithering nonsense. "Tetralectic" is a theological term (see these google results) which has nothing to do with mathematics, and may be a neologism even in theology; and the content is gibberish. Septentrionalis 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - The reciprocal of a composite number divided by a prime is equal to the prime divided by the composite. Since the composites get "bigger" much more slowly than the primes (due to the greater frequency of composite numbers once we get out of single digits) there is absolutely no way that sums of these quotients could converge (since each subsequent value would be greater than the last). The chart given below as a justification doesn't even make sense. It seems like the "Primes" and "Composites" column are supposed to say how many of each type of number exist in the range from 1 to F6. However, since all even numbers (with the exception of two) are composites (proof: divisible by 2), it is impossible to have more primes than composite in any range once you get above 12. I must admit that the article made for a good laugh in my analysis class, but it is certainly not suitable for WP. →Bobby← 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sources on the page link to Yahoo! searches (?), so unverified (and if the above is correct, untrue). Trebor 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Apparent original research (contributor's name is same as the author of the "famous" theorem). Proved in 2006, but famous already? Yet no google hits for "tetralectic theorem" or "tetralectic constant". Phiwum 20:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delelte. No reliable sources like peer-reviewed journals, hence not verifiable. Additionally, I don't think it's correct, though I'm not sure because I don't quite understand what the gentleman means. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Very poorly written uninteresting original research. Long comments follow.

The only non-religious Google hit on "tetralectic" appears to be [1] and copies of that text. I don't know Spanish but my machine translation gave no verifiable sources and looked like non-notable hype to me. It mentions "Javier Ruiz", who must be the discoverer of the "famous result" in Tetralectic constant (and possibly also the author). Apart from mentioning "tetralectic" and primes, I see no relation between the Google hit and the mathematics of the article. I haven't examined the Spanish Google hits on "tetraléctica".

I guessed how the poorly explained columns in the article are defined.

Let the left unnamed column be x.

F6 = number with x-1 3's followed by one 4 = (10^x+2)/3

PRIMES = pi(10^x) (number of primes below 10^x)

COMPOSITES = F6 - PRIMES (why use F6 here instead of 10^x?)

C/P = COMPOSITES/PRIMES = (F6 - PRIMES)/PRIMES = F6/PRIMES - 1

Dif Major-mInor = (C/P in next line) - (C/P in this line)

log is the natural logarithm.

By the prime number theorem, PRIMES = pi(10^x) is approximately

(10^x)/(log(10^x)) = (10^x)/(x*log(10))

Then C/P = F6/PRIMES - 1 is approximately

(10^x/3) / ((10^x)/(x*log(10))) = x*log(10)/3 - 1

Dif Major-mInor for the line with x is approximately

((x+1)*log(10)/3 - 1) - (x*log(10)/3 - 1) = log(10)/3 = 0.76752836...

I guess from the article that the so-called "Tetralectic constant" is the article's mentioned "constant c < 0.767661013369489", and that this c is intended to be the limit of "Dif Major-mInor" when x tends to infinite. Then we simply get c = log(10)/3. This c value is the result of (apparently arbitrarily) choosing to define F6 = (10^x+2)/3, and PRIMES = pi(10^x).

Once the meaning of the undefined terms has been guessed, this is elementary mathematics. I see no value in it. I guess the author just played around with prime counts and thought it was significant that a constant emerged from some arbitrary choices.

A lot could be done to clarify the article but I think the end result would be uninteresting and useless statistics and observations. I see nothing notable which isn't already placed much better in prime counting function and prime number theorem. And the term "Tetralectic constant" has no reference and no Google hits, so there is no reason to redirect. PrimeHunter 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete per PrimeHunter. Note also that the F6 column (among others) was obviously generated on a computer (without understanding of what it means), because of the trailing 0s. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per PrimeHunter, to whom thanks are due for his helpful work. WMMartin 22:50, 5 December 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.