Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rigorous error analysis: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:23, 7 February 2007

Latest revision as of 05:28, 14 February 2022

(5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was <span id='xfd-closure'>'''Delete'''.</span> <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—[[User:Quarl|Quarl]] ^{([[User Talk:Quarl|talk]])} <small>2007-02-11 23:35Z</small></i></span>

===[[Rigorous error analysis]]===

:{{la|Rigorous error analysis}}

:{{la|Rigerous error analysis}} {{abca}}

The article is wrong in that the error analysis presented is not rigorous. It says that the error in f(x) is the derivative f' times the error in x raised to the second power. This is a decent error estimate except that you shouldn't raise the error in x to the second power. However, it is not rigorous; a rigorous error analysis would yield a ''bound'' on the error, not an ''estimate''.

Line 14 ⟶ 24:

*'''Delete''', complete wrong --[[User:Mathemaduenn|Mathemaduenn]] 11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' - appears to be orginal research -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''weak delete''' I wouldnt like to delete articles because they are not clearly presented, but we do delete articles because they do not provide a meaningful amount of information, as is the case with this one. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' Original research, and there is no evidence (from googling at least) that there is a topic named 'Rigorous error analysis'. [[User:CloudNine|CloudNine]] 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' Not a notable topic. [[Errors and residuals in statistics]] and [[numerical analysis]] address this topic adequately. [[User:DavidCBryant|DavidCBryant]] 21:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>