Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spatial complexity: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Loew Galitz (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Danstronger (talk | contribs) reply |
||
Line 17:
*'''Delete''' "Spatial complexity" can mean a million different things, but they are largely unrelated to each other. This is not a case of one ''concept'' used in many fields, but one ''phrase'' (note [[WP:NOTDICT]]) used in many fields to mean different things, and for different purposes. The meanings discussed in the article and the Papadimitriou book are unrelated to the meanings used in almost all of the references. There is no underlying coherent concept here that is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps a disambiguation page would be appropriate if multiple of the meanings of the phrase were notable, but that does not appear to be the case at this time. [[User:Danstronger|Danstronger]] ([[User talk:Danstronger|talk]]) 17:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
**'''No'''. Spatial complexity can be ''measured'' in million different ways. Same as [[distance]] may be measured in numerous ways, and these often unrelated to each other. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 22:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
*** But when you measure the same distance in different ways, you get the same answer. This is what it means to be measuring the same thing in numerous ways. This would not be the case for "spatial complexity". Please also note the policy on [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]]. [[User:Danstronger|Danstronger]] ([[User talk:Danstronger|talk]]) 23:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Another example of the [[Bag-of-words model|bag-of-words problem]]: a couple ordinary words get smushed together to make a technical term, leading to countless false positives and the conflation of separate topics (i.e., [[WP:SYNTH]]). For example, the introduction says that spatial complexity is "eventually algorithmic", and the definition in the text (sourced to the 2020 book) insists that it is defined using either run-length encoding or edit distance. The [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.08.023 very next reference] uses none of these ideas, instead employing ideas from [[algebraic graph theory]] like the [[spectral radius]]. Ditto the [https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036139996306833 next reference after that]: once again, no algorithmic information, run-length encoding, or anything of the sort. It's all [[WP:REFBOMB]]-ing unrelated publications that happened to say "hey, this pattern looks complicated". There's no coherent subject here, no care put into the choice of references, and no text worth preserving. And I need to spare a moment for that opening sentence: "spatial complexity is defined as the complexity of a spatial entity" — so, spatial complexity is defined as the spatial complexity. [[Doge|Such spatial, very complex]]. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 18:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
**"spatial complexity is defined as the complexity of a spatial entity" - nothing wrong with this definition, and no, spatial complexity is '''not''' defined as the spatial complexity. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 22:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
| |||