Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walstad's Paradox

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. Mailer Diablo 15:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walstad's Paradox

Claims to be related to set theory, but unreferenced and no signs of rigor. Not a standard mathematical concept anywhere as far as I can tell. Google yields 3 hits, one of which is this article, and the other two are from discussion forums, so very non-notable.

I am also nominating the biographical page of the person who purportedly devised the above theory as NN.

• Lee Field Walstad TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Also see the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of one divided by zero TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Clear hoax. -- GWO
• Delete. Unless someone steps up to tell me how this guy just one-upped Russell. Lundse 08:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like originally researched nonsense to me. Kevin 08:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I think that all the edits made by the author are an elaborate hoax. The article is deliberately written to be as unclear as possible. The actual theory is clearly wrong, regardless. (There are some sets that do not contain themselves) - Richardcavell 09:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Some sort of original research or hoax. DarthVader 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - pompous & pointless with bad spelling ... did the author finish high school?--Invisifan 13:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both theory and author as hoax. DJ Clayworth 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete The author did graduate Highscool in the top of his class and also tested in the top %99 for Math on the ACT. He is currently pursuing his degree in physics and environmental engineering at New Mexico Tech and is in high esteem. He was able to prove that Russell's assumption that everything does not contain itself is wrong. That is because the power set of everything is no bigger than the size of everything, because the size of everything is 1/0, to which there is no greater value. Sincerely, the author's spokesperson Bossk2 18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2

You may wish to better acquaint yourself with Russell's Paradox before attempting to disprove it. -- GWO

Thank you for your comment, I truly appreciate it. I am very familiar with Russell's Paradox. Did you read what I just stated above? Russell's Paradox is based off the assumption that the set of all sets can not contain itself because the power set of the set of all sets must be bigger than the set of all sets itself. However, this is incorrect and the reason is because Russell did not know or did not realize that the size of the set of all sets is 1/0, and there can be no greater number. Thus the power set of the set of all sets is no bigger than the set of all sets itself, and thankfully, this means that the set of all sets can contain itself. In turn this means that the set of all sets which do not contain themselves may be defined as the empty set, for in reality everything is self-containing and it must be so since there is no greater number than 1/0. Hopefully this clears up the confusion.Bossk2 20:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2

No. It isn't. Russell's paradox makes absolutely no reference to power sets. Russell's paradox is merely that a set defined as "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves" is not well-defined. That's it. No power sets, no cardinality, no infinities, and certainly no need to talk about the magnitude of 1/0.

Love,

An actual mathematician.

• Comment The article with Lee's biography was just edited to include more pertinent academic information such as what was just listed above. Also Lee's ties to Dr. Penny Boston and Dr. Lisa Young were added as well as information about the new species of mushroom which he is currently describing with Dr. Gaston Guzman for either Mycotaxon or Journal of Mycological Research. Thus the article has been greatly improved to exemplify more interesting information and I recommend it not be deleted.
• Delete per WP:NOR and, frankly, per WP:NFT. Arguing whether the empty set has no value and attempting to assign meaning based on bad analogy to "1/0"?? Kid, stop trying the mushrooms and userfy this non-rigorous fluff until you get it covered by reliable sources by WP's standards. For a topic like this, the source needs to be a peer-reviewed journal, or some really substantial coverage by general mass media. Barno 20:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I strongly respectfully object because it is clear that the empty set is what is defined as undefined, not the compete set, 1/0. This is plainly evident to anybody who can open their eyes to the inherent definitions of these concepts and thus it is not original research. Furthermore WP:NFT is a category I do not understand because it implies that important realizations can not happen to anyone at any given moment, by serendipitous or other fortuitous means. Additionally, the way that you have put 1/0 in quotation marks with two question marks after seems to indicate that you yourself do not understand the concept of 1/0 and thus I do not understand why you think you can identify a bad analogy when you do not understand the concepts involved. I think it is clear that most people do not understand the concept of 1/0 and perhaps they should read the article about the theory of 1/0 so that they can gain enlightenment about this mysterious and all-important concept which has been ignored for centuries and which was only adressed by Brahmagupta. The information is being posted in good faith for everyone's benefit and it would be a shame and an injustice to delete such fundamentally important realizations which are an inherent result of human curiosity and our belief in understanding everything, i.e. 1/0. Sincerely, Bossk2 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
• Delete per Barno. Reconsider after publication of these topics in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal... -- Scientizzle 21:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - having read the defense of the author on this AfD, I am sure that he's either hoaxing or he's psychotic. There's an outside possibility that he just plain doesn't understand it and overemphasises things. - Richardcavell 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • How can you be so sure? As a wikipedian you are supposed to be exercising good faith. I have released this information in good faith, so you should take it in good faith. Sincerely, 129.138.44.62 23:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2
• Delete both. I'd prefer to userfy Lee Field Walstad, but the author claims to be only a representative. Melchoir 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am sorry for the confusion. Yes I am Lee Walstad, but I serve as a spokesperson for the theory of one divided by zero until it is accepted or somebody takes my place. The reason I do not claim to be the author of the theory of one divided by zero is because I believe that it is the sole property of 1/0 itself, and I have merely realized what it was telling me, that it is the number everything. Also I am not the only one who has realized this, Arceliar and Edward Solomon are others that I know of. It would be a discredit to them to claim the theory of 1/0 as original research. Walstad's paradox is only an extension.129.138.2.196 02:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2

    You should be aware that creating an autobiographical article on Wikipedia is a serious faux pas. You might want to put this into User:Bossk2 if you really want to talk about yourself. (Or editing such an artcle for any other purpose than correcting egregiously incorrect or slanderous statements in it. Assuming you and Bossk1 are not the same person.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fascinatingly philosophical, but unfortunately is textbook original research. I wish Mr. Walstad well, and if his work gets published in mathematical journals we can write an article about him then. Fagstein 02:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as non-notable, original research, and unverifiable (or more specifically "verifiably false"?). Ardric47 03:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Again I respectfully object to all of the above. Walstad's Paradox is an extension of the theory of 1/0 which is a natural realization that anybody can make and which other people have made (see the article), therefore it cannot be claimed to be original research, it belongs to 1/0. Please provide a reference for why you say the theory is verifiably false. Russell was not considering the fact that the set of all sets is 1/0, and the power set can NOT be greater than this value.
• Delete as violation of WP:NOR and ban the obnoxious author who pollutes the discussion page with unsigned comments. --Chaser 07:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Actually nonsense, if not exactly "patent nonsense". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. GIT+RP+TOE=nonsense. —Ruud
• Delete per Ruud--Deville (Talk) 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and how! "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves may be the empty set"? Is there a WP:NOT for demonstrably false articles? --Victor Lighthill 04:58, 12 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.