Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector (physical)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Vector (physical)
A content fork of User:Firefly322's from Vector (spatial). Despite clear consensus at Talk:Vector (spatial) that the new fork should be moved out of the main article space, the author created a new, virtually identical fork Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) (also with very little actual content). I recommend deletion. Let's have at most one unsanctioned content fork at a time, please. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedydelete as nominator. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)- Delete, but WP:CFORK doesn't seem to be a speedy critereon. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note, I was not invited by the nominator. I just happened to be watching the "article". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. WP:CFORK is not a speedy criterion, but No content is. Also, the same lack of content was completely copied to a separate location. It seems a fairly uncontroversial case for speedy. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It has references and a lead paragraph. I doubt that would satisfy CSD A1 or CSD A3. --Sturm 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC).
- Clear consensus has not been reach. I think the facts clearly show that few to no editors understand the difference between a physical vector entity as described in a 1st year physics text and a mathematical vector as found in a linear algebra text. The motivation behind vector (physical) is to focus on vectors as physical entities. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Morever, the article on Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) is completely different. It in fact is an article about vectors conforming to the Gibbs-Heaviside vectorial system (a mathematical entity obeying specifc mathematical rules, whereas a physical vector obeys physical laws justifying the article vector (physical) ). --Firefly322 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I created these articles when it became clear that the majority of editors of vector (spatial) were unable to see the obvious distinction between these two very different meanings of the word vector. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The distinction is between an arbitrary vector space and a contravariant vector (informally, a vector corresponding to a "direction" in space), a distinction you have demonstrated you don't understand (e.g. you claimed momentum was not a spatial/contravariant vector). Nor is defining "vectors" as things in physical laws useful, as a huge variety of vector spaces (including very abstract mathematical vector spaces that have nothing to do with spatial "directions") are used in physical laws. None of which you appear to comprehend, as it has been explained to you repeatedly. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Clear consensus has not been reach. I think the facts clearly show that few to no editors understand the difference between a physical vector entity as described in a 1st year physics text and a mathematical vector as found in a linear algebra text. The motivation behind vector (physical) is to focus on vectors as physical entities. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It has references and a lead paragraph. I doubt that would satisfy CSD A1 or CSD A3. --Sturm 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC).
- Comment. WP:CFORK is not a speedy criterion, but No content is. Also, the same lack of content was completely copied to a separate location. It seems a fairly uncontroversial case for speedy. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note, I was not invited by the nominator. I just happened to be watching the "article". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both forks. This has been discussed to death on Talk:Vector (spatial) and there is no justification for a fork. Firefly has nonstandard notions about vectors that do not belong in Wikipedia. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think Mr. Steven Johnson is wrong and I wish to appeal to someone who can be more objective: someone who didn't create the term vector (spatial). Specifically, Mr. Johnson apparently claims that a vector as a physical quantity is a nonstandard notion. He further seems unable to see differences between various mathematical vectorial systems such as the conventional Gibbs-Heaviside Vectorial System and others which arise as a consequence of mathematical vector spaces. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. I never claimed that vectors in physical laws are nonstandard notions; what I have explained repeatedly is that it is neither useful nor standard to define a "vector" as something described by physical laws. Real numbers are used in physical laws too, but that doesn't mean we need a real number (physics) article. But I'm not going to repeat the whole debate again here. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yet standard physics texts, calculus texts, and even dictionaries define vectors as something described by physical laws. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- No they don't. Even in the quotes you provided to "prove" your point, they say that there are things in physics which are described by vectors, which is correct and uncontroversial, not that all vectors are things in physics. The mere fact that many students first learn about vectors in a physics class doesn't change this. Many students first learn about derivatives in a physics class too, and derivatives often appear in physical laws, but that doesn't mean derivatives are defined as operations appearing in physical laws. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes they do. The quotes provided state that there are physical quantities called vectors and that these physical quantities obey mathematical laws (i.e., physical laws). They don't state that there are mathematical entities called vectors, which may or may not obey physical laws. Yet they nor I am denying the reality or value of mathematical vectors. And, as an analogy, just as the "space" in a "vector space" or in a "Hilbert space" has nothing to do with a dimensional definition of physical space, this mathematical borrowing and defining of the word "space" doesn’t mean that physical space defined by experimental fact is non-standard. Many students first learn about the experimentally verified properties of physical space in physics class as well, and physical space is part of all standard physical law, but that doesn't mean that a useful mathematical definition of a "vector space" or a "Hilbert space" can or should exclude or depreciate a standard definition of physical space or its properties. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- No they don't. Even in the quotes you provided to "prove" your point, they say that there are things in physics which are described by vectors, which is correct and uncontroversial, not that all vectors are things in physics. The mere fact that many students first learn about vectors in a physics class doesn't change this. Many students first learn about derivatives in a physics class too, and derivatives often appear in physical laws, but that doesn't mean derivatives are defined as operations appearing in physical laws. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yet standard physics texts, calculus texts, and even dictionaries define vectors as something described by physical laws. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. I never claimed that vectors in physical laws are nonstandard notions; what I have explained repeatedly is that it is neither useful nor standard to define a "vector" as something described by physical laws. Real numbers are used in physical laws too, but that doesn't mean we need a real number (physics) article. But I'm not going to repeat the whole debate again here. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think Mr. Steven Johnson is wrong and I wish to appeal to someone who can be more objective: someone who didn't create the term vector (spatial). Specifically, Mr. Johnson apparently claims that a vector as a physical quantity is a nonstandard notion. He further seems unable to see differences between various mathematical vectorial systems such as the conventional Gibbs-Heaviside Vectorial System and others which arise as a consequence of mathematical vector spaces. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. When people disagree they should talk and obey consensus, rather than creating forks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sigh. Usually, good intellectual manners would prevent such a comment like Cheeser's or Alexandrov's without some subject-related reason or at least some imagination. I believe my argument on the grounds of intellectual fairness deserves that much. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No useful content. As noted above, the creator has nonstandard ideas about vectors, has flooded the talk page of vector (spatial) by quotes whose meaning he doesn't understand, but having failed to make a coherent argument, proceeded with creating the forks that reflect his unique view. Evidently, hopes to prevail by attrition (started to flood this page, too). Arcfrk (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I have not advocated a seance with Netwon. I have not used comments I don't understand. Nor have I failed to make a coherent argument. On this page, I have tried to show Mr. Johnson and the entire mathematics community reverence and respect, by putting forth a very logical and sound position for standard physical thought. I believe the possibility for deletion of my work deserves a fair response to the facts of my position. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- There isn't any difference between a mathematical vector and a vector you're using in Phyiscs -- THEY'RE THE SAME THING. If you're advocating a new position, that's original research and isn't allowed on wikipedia (WP:NOR) JoeD80 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is nonsense There are lots of "vectors" in mathematics that have no physical interpretation. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a content fork in that Vector (spatial) is mainly a mathematical treatment while this article proposes a treatment from the standpoint of physics/engineering, which, from the outline section headings, seems to be quite different. The competing article Vector (spatial) seems to explain the topic poorly and, for example, has almost no inline citations to support its detailed content. It also seems to be too much of a how to. We have a variety of even worse articles such as Coordinate vector (which has no sources at all) and so the contention that this subject must be covered within a single article seems overdone. There is some contention within the talk page for Vector (spatial) as to the best name for the article and this further supports the idea that other article titles and treatments are worth trying. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Figuring out how to translate physical problems into vectors is an issue, but the vector math is identical. JoeD80 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment One issue that you failed to address is whether there is need for the virtually identical forks vector (physical) and vector (Gibbs-Heaviside), both created around the same time by the same author. Would you be in favor of keeping one and deleting the other? Silly rabbit (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The outline for vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) indicates that it is a historical treatment which is different again. I'm not sure the title is the best but it's hard to say without seeing more. If User:Firefly322 wishes to exert himself in that direction and the fine list of sources that he has prepared stands up, then why should we stand in his way? Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The alternative of userifying the articles, given the rather broad consensus at Talk:Vector (spatial) that the new article(s) emerged as a POV/content-fork was rejected by Firefly322. I would be willing to allow the articles to be userified until they have some content to speak of. This, it seems, would grant the editor the ability to progress the articles without contentiously cluttering the mainspace with perceived forks. Would you support a vote of userify? Silly rabbit (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The outline for vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) indicates that it is a historical treatment which is different again. I'm not sure the title is the best but it's hard to say without seeing more. If User:Firefly322 wishes to exert himself in that direction and the fine list of sources that he has prepared stands up, then why should we stand in his way? Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment One issue that you failed to address is whether there is need for the virtually identical forks vector (physical) and vector (Gibbs-Heaviside), both created around the same time by the same author. Would you be in favor of keeping one and deleting the other? Silly rabbit (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Many of us agree that the current vector (spatial) article needs improvement, but that's not a justification for confused forking into poorly-defined and almost content-free articles using nonstandard definitions. We should stand in his way because his list of sources does not support his position, and his understanding of this subject is fundamentally confused. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Figuring out how to translate physical problems into vectors is an issue, but the vector math is identical. JoeD80 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There is no difference between mathematical and physical vectors. One is a subset of the other RogueNinjatalk 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are differences, as explained in some of the existing content - units and notation, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- You'd be hard-pressed to find a notation for vector spaces used in mathematics that is not also used in the physical sciences, or vice versa; I don't see any example in "the existing content". As for the use of units, the same argument could be applied to fork almost every single article in mathematics that applies to a subject used in physical sciences; should we have a real number (physics) article because in physics most real numbers come with units? The real problem is that "vector (physics)" is not specific in any useful way for an article, because there are so many types of vector spaces used in the physical sciences, nor is Firefly's definition supported by the references (despite his assertions to the contrary, which are based on a flawed understanding on his part). —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The notation example I was thinking of from the existing content is Note: In introductory physics classes, these three special vectors are often instead denoted i, j, k at Vector (spatial)#Representation of a vector. There will be other notations in other domains such as navigation. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bad example: that notation is also often used in calculus classes etcetera, so it is hardly unique to physics. Conversely, physicists often use other notations too. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the i, j, k notation comes from William Rowan Hamilton's quaternions. The letters were introduced for this purpose by Hamilton himself (though I think he used capital I, J, and K). And this notation is still used almost universally in both mathematics and physics for its original designated purpose. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- So this is another example of the weakness of the Vector (spatial) article? Going back to that, I note the point about Covariance and contravariance of vectors in which the language of physics and mathematics is said to be different and contradictory. Since these articles are too obscure for a general readership, better clarity is needed and this may well be served by the distinct treatments envisaged by Firefly. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Index notation indicates a tensor, while i, j, k notation indicates a vector. Thus, Vector (spatial)'s preference of the index notation e1, e2, e3 over the Hamiltonian-Gibbs-Heaviside notation of i, j, k indicates an unstated predilection for tensor analysis. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- So this is another example of the weakness of the Vector (spatial) article? Going back to that, I note the point about Covariance and contravariance of vectors in which the language of physics and mathematics is said to be different and contradictory. Since these articles are too obscure for a general readership, better clarity is needed and this may well be served by the distinct treatments envisaged by Firefly. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the i, j, k notation comes from William Rowan Hamilton's quaternions. The letters were introduced for this purpose by Hamilton himself (though I think he used capital I, J, and K). And this notation is still used almost universally in both mathematics and physics for its original designated purpose. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bad example: that notation is also often used in calculus classes etcetera, so it is hardly unique to physics. Conversely, physicists often use other notations too. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The notation example I was thinking of from the existing content is Note: In introductory physics classes, these three special vectors are often instead denoted i, j, k at Vector (spatial)#Representation of a vector. There will be other notations in other domains such as navigation. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- You'd be hard-pressed to find a notation for vector spaces used in mathematics that is not also used in the physical sciences, or vice versa; I don't see any example in "the existing content". As for the use of units, the same argument could be applied to fork almost every single article in mathematics that applies to a subject used in physical sciences; should we have a real number (physics) article because in physics most real numbers come with units? The real problem is that "vector (physics)" is not specific in any useful way for an article, because there are so many types of vector spaces used in the physical sciences, nor is Firefly's definition supported by the references (despite his assertions to the contrary, which are based on a flawed understanding on his part). —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep (I am the author) Though I'm certainly not claiming to be an all-knowning, omniscient, divine being or anything close, I maintain that these definitions are not vague nor flawed and that their purpose is to define a vector as a quantity obeying physical laws. It's especially important to add that neither they nor I am denying the reality or value of the mathematical or physical entity that has, is, or will be described in vector (spatial). --Firefly322 (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just curious, how does a quantity obey physical laws? The only things that obey physical laws are physical objects. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Physical laws govern energy and matter through space and time. In scientific usage, particles and quantities refer to different magnitudes and multitudes of mass as well as energy. A physical vector as a quantity would be a quantity of some kind of energy. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I afford you all due respect and all good faith, but I have no idea what any of what you just said means. Once again, a vector is not a physical object, it is an abstract representation of a physical object (or of particular physical circumstances). If I have four apples, the apples obey the laws of physics - "four" does not. If I am traveling 40mph east in my car, my car obeys the laws of physics - "40mph east" does not. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- On page 10 of Introduction to Electrodynamics by David J. Griffiths (a well-respected physicist in good standing), there's a comment that even though a set of 1X3 matrixes with the of components of X pears, Y apples, and Z bananas add like a vector, "it's obviously not a vector, in the physicist's sense of the word, because it doesn't really have a direction." --Firefly322 (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with my question. Do you or do you not understand the fact that vectors do not obey the laws of physics? The physical objects or circumstances they describe are what obey the laws of physics. Vectors are abstract representations of such objects/circumstances. Do you believe there are physical objects called vectors that one could, say, pick up and put into a sack or something? --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's funny you should say that because I was just observing that the Vector (spatial) article starts by saying that a vector is an object. The more I look at that article, the less I like it. Anyway, I suppose that Firefly's point is that a physical vector has dimensions such as length/time and that these attributes go beyond the abstract geometrical concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- If I were generous, or perhaps under other circumstances, I'd have assumed that (or something like that) is what he meant. However, even if we disregard the lack of content, the forking, whatever other issues, he just substantiated the existence of this article by asserting that this was a different topic than vector (spatial). --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's funny you should say that because I was just observing that the Vector (spatial) article starts by saying that a vector is an object. The more I look at that article, the less I like it. Anyway, I suppose that Firefly's point is that a physical vector has dimensions such as length/time and that these attributes go beyond the abstract geometrical concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with my question. Do you or do you not understand the fact that vectors do not obey the laws of physics? The physical objects or circumstances they describe are what obey the laws of physics. Vectors are abstract representations of such objects/circumstances. Do you believe there are physical objects called vectors that one could, say, pick up and put into a sack or something? --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- On page 10 of Introduction to Electrodynamics by David J. Griffiths (a well-respected physicist in good standing), there's a comment that even though a set of 1X3 matrixes with the of components of X pears, Y apples, and Z bananas add like a vector, "it's obviously not a vector, in the physicist's sense of the word, because it doesn't really have a direction." --Firefly322 (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I afford you all due respect and all good faith, but I have no idea what any of what you just said means. Once again, a vector is not a physical object, it is an abstract representation of a physical object (or of particular physical circumstances). If I have four apples, the apples obey the laws of physics - "four" does not. If I am traveling 40mph east in my car, my car obeys the laws of physics - "40mph east" does not. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Physical laws govern energy and matter through space and time. In scientific usage, particles and quantities refer to different magnitudes and multitudes of mass as well as energy. A physical vector as a quantity would be a quantity of some kind of energy. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just curious, how does a quantity obey physical laws? The only things that obey physical laws are physical objects. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Article makes multiple errors in the very first sentence, and the error rate does not diminish. For example: A vector is a quantity with direction conforming to physical laws... eh? Vectors are often used express physical laws, but certainly do not conform to them; vectors are abstract objects. ...physical laws such as quantities of displacement, velocity, and field strength. Displacement, velocity and field strength are not "physical laws" in any shape or form. Vector here refers to a measurable quantity and should not be confused with the mathematical symbol also called a vector vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) Huh? The vectors in physics are the same as the vectors in mathematics, and should be confused with one another! That is the whole point! The rest of the article is equally hopeless; delete the thing post-haste. linas (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as unnecessary fork. I find the argument that this is equivalent to having a equally useless "Number (physics)" compelling. The only thing here that might conceivably be useful would be a list such as List of physical quantities represented by vectors. --Itub (talk) 10:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The standard wording for this apparently, compellingly useless number (physical) analysis is unit analysis or dimensional analysis (these are woking links). Do the respectable Mr. Johnson and the respectable Mr. Linas propose the deletion of the wikipedia entry on experimentally-based, scientific dimensional analysis, since Mr. Johnson's argument "proves" his point that it is a fork of proof-based mathematic numbers? --Firefly322 (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Take as another example of the analysis of a quantity vector analysis (i.e. "the analysis of quantities having magnitude and direction" from 2002 Encyclopedia America). This also as standard as physical unit analysis and in fact a google search or a book title search or even looking through a Britanica ("quantities such as velocity") or Encyclopedia America reveals vector analysis as entries. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- We do have a legitimate article on vector analysis (actually a redirect to vector calculus), which is not the same as your unnecessary fork of vector (spatial). --Itub (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Try Mathematical constant vs Physical constant. It's like the difference between Applied Mathematics and Pure Mathematics. There's a reason that these are different articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but it is an accepted standard on Wikipedia that such argument by analogy (or what one sometimes calls WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not really a compelling reason to, say, keep this "vector (physical)" article. We should not be arguing by analogy, nor by the existence of some other math/physics duality, nor by Firefly's preferred hyperbolic strawman argument. I will point out that dimensional analysis is not a fork in any way shape or form from number, not in the sense that Itub clearly intended. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The point at issue here is Itub's Delete rationale. This is the converse which WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gives as:
- Yes, but it is an accepted standard on Wikipedia that such argument by analogy (or what one sometimes calls WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not really a compelling reason to, say, keep this "vector (physical)" article. We should not be arguing by analogy, nor by the existence of some other math/physics duality, nor by Firefly's preferred hyperbolic strawman argument. I will point out that dimensional analysis is not a fork in any way shape or form from number, not in the sense that Itub clearly intended. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Try Mathematical constant vs Physical constant. It's like the difference between Applied Mathematics and Pure Mathematics. There's a reason that these are different articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- So, Itub's rationale is weak. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And so even if article like vector (spatial) has existed for 5 or so years, its mere length of time in existance isn't proof that there wasn't justifiable grounds for its deletion, if I understand the legal nuances of this wikipedia sticking point, correctly. Not that I'm saying there are such grounds for the deletion of vector (spatial), just that its mere existance shouldn't be used to agrue against the existence of vector (physical). --Firefly322 (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, Itub used an example to explain his rationale, not as his rationale. On the other hand Firefly decided "fine, then why don't we delete all physics-related articles that have a math equivalent?" (paraphrase) which smacks of strawmanning and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. For example, I think the eminent Mr. Colonel Warden has even listed excellent reasons that would satisfy wiki deletion policy if someone did nominate vector (spatial) for deletion. As a further example, Mr. Steven G. Johnson's membership among the faculty at MIT doesn't mean that he can use a weak rationale as the basis of existence or non-existence (inculding vector (spatial)). --Firefly322 (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- So you think we should delete vector (spatial) too?? Also, please refrain from taking shots at people and their real-life occupation or circumstances. It is unwarranted and irrelevant. And why do you insist on constantly using irrelevant and unnecessary honorifics like "eminent" and "respectable"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, this comes close to Number (physics): Physical quantity. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you could say that physical quantity is, in a sense, a "physical number". But there is a difference: "physical quantity" (or just "quantity") is a well-known term in common use, seen for example in authoritative sources such as the SI brochures. On the other hand, a "physical vector" is something made up for this article, not a distinction commonly made in the real world. --Itub (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The same can be said of "spatial vector". See the latest talk on Vector (spatial) for more discussion of the difficulty of naming and scoping this topic. Note also that it is unclear whether mathematical concepts like continuous and real number are true of the physical universe in which a quantum/discrete nature is found at small scales. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, the precise title of the article can be debated, but that's because vectors are called simply "vectors" and we need to disambiguate them in some way from other uses of the same word in biology, computer science, etc. However, that doesn't negate that "physical vectors" are not different from normal "spatial" vectors in any way. --Itub (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion at Vector (spatial) indicates that vectors are not simple, alas. One point raised by Steven is the property of covariance which term is used with different meanings in physics and maths. See Covariance and contravariance of vectors for more details. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say vectors were simple, just that they are "called simply" (that is, using just one word) vectors. But there's no point continuing this ping-pong debate. I'll leave it to the closing admin to evaluate the consensus. This will be my last comment here. --Itub (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion at Vector (spatial) indicates that vectors are not simple, alas. One point raised by Steven is the property of covariance which term is used with different meanings in physics and maths. See Covariance and contravariance of vectors for more details. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, the precise title of the article can be debated, but that's because vectors are called simply "vectors" and we need to disambiguate them in some way from other uses of the same word in biology, computer science, etc. However, that doesn't negate that "physical vectors" are not different from normal "spatial" vectors in any way. --Itub (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The same can be said of "spatial vector". See the latest talk on Vector (spatial) for more discussion of the difficulty of naming and scoping this topic. Note also that it is unclear whether mathematical concepts like continuous and real number are true of the physical universe in which a quantum/discrete nature is found at small scales. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you could say that physical quantity is, in a sense, a "physical number". But there is a difference: "physical quantity" (or just "quantity") is a well-known term in common use, seen for example in authoritative sources such as the SI brochures. On the other hand, a "physical vector" is something made up for this article, not a distinction commonly made in the real world. --Itub (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, this comes close to Number (physics): Physical quantity. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- So you think we should delete vector (spatial) too?? Also, please refrain from taking shots at people and their real-life occupation or circumstances. It is unwarranted and irrelevant. And why do you insist on constantly using irrelevant and unnecessary honorifics like "eminent" and "respectable"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. For example, I think the eminent Mr. Colonel Warden has even listed excellent reasons that would satisfy wiki deletion policy if someone did nominate vector (spatial) for deletion. As a further example, Mr. Steven G. Johnson's membership among the faculty at MIT doesn't mean that he can use a weak rationale as the basis of existence or non-existence (inculding vector (spatial)). --Firefly322 (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Delete per Steven G Johnson rationale. Tparameter (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Colonel Warden's rationale above specifically that this is from the standpoint of physics/engineering. Although I see the other argument in favour of deletion and there is some overlap, it is significant enough to merit a fork.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 16:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia operates by consensus. There is no consensus for separate articles. I have followed the many discussions that have dominated the talk pages for the last few weeks, and, per WP:CFORK, I remain unconvinced that separate articles are necessary. - Neparis (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - To the closing admin: may I suggest that the article be userfied? - Neparis (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both forks per WP:CFORK. -- Fropuff (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Everything about physical should have their own page, separate from mathematically, despite same character. JacquesNguyen (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- It has not been established that this is the case. Furthermore, it has not been established that a vector is, in fact, something physical. Could you please expand on your rationale? --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jacques' point seems clear enough to me. But since you don't understand it, please could you expand on your first sentence. What has not been established? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks not-Jacques. It has not been established that this ("everything about physical should have their own page, separate from mathematically, despite same character") is the case. When someone uses the word "this" it generally refers to the most obvious thing. For example, if you said "I think we should delete the Main Page" and then I say "This is a bad idea" what do you think I'm talking about? --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jacques' point seems clear enough to me. But since you don't understand it, please could you expand on your first sentence. What has not been established? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- It has not been established that this is the case. Furthermore, it has not been established that a vector is, in fact, something physical. Could you please expand on your rationale? --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2008 (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.
