Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricomplex numbers

Tricomplex numbers

Tricomplex numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

Tricomplex multibrot set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tetrabrot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These three new article are WP:OR, see WT:WPM#Self-publication on WP? D.Lazard (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Delete- I agree with the nominator. This is clearly OR. Reyk _YO! 14:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I agree with the nominator also. The situation is exacerbated somewhat by unconstructive editing on the part of supporter(s) of these articles. But that aside, OR is a clear enough reason to clear these up. Rschwieb (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to WP:OR and as such failing notability as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR, agree on notability failing issue as well. Simranpreet singh (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've corrected the AFD links on the two co-nominated articles. Since they were redlinked only for a few hours, there's no need to fuss with separating the noms or anything. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. There are a handful of papers listed in Google scholar that cite the main reference here, but they're mostly also by combinations of the same authors, so I don't see the in-depth coverage by multiple independent groups needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Save. As the creator of these articles, I only want to mention that the article "Tricomplex numbers" and "Tetrabrot" are not my current personal research. For the article Tricomplex numbers, this a well documented subject and you may find many references, e.g. G.B. Price "An Introduction to Multicomplex numbers and functions". For the article Tetrabrot, the results come mainly from the two following research papers: "A Generalized Mandelbrot Set for Bicomplex Numbers" from D. Rochon in 2000 and "On a Bicomplex Distance Estimation for the Tetrabrot" from É. Martineau and D. Rochon in 2004. These scientific articles are not my personal research. I would appreciate that some solutions are proposed to improve the articles or some solutions that may help to save them. Best regards -Mathopo (talk) 14:45, 16 november 2017 (HAE) — Mathopo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete all – (a) lack of notability; (b) lack of merit
  • The name "tricomplex numbers" seems to be more commonly used for the three-dimensional algebra over the reals (as in https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0008120) than for C⊕C⊕C⊕C, which appears to be the topic of the article. All algebraic constructions over a direct sum of rings decompose, allowing each part to be analyzed in isolation, and are uninteresting mathematically. Price only briefly mentions them. Only the simplest examples of such direct sums, such as the bicomplex numbers and split-complex numbers, seem to have any notability or instructive value.
  • The tricomplex multibrot set should accordingly decompose as the Cartesian product of three Mandelbrot sets, making it uninteresting.
  • The tetrabrot article does not seem to give enough to even understand exactly what it is talking about, or why it might be interesting.

  —Quondum 04:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks to be the direct sum of four copies, C⊕C⊕C⊕C — which is still not interesting, and so the "tricomplex multibrot set" is the Cartesian product of four Mandelbrot sets — which is, also, still not interesting. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, corrected in my comment above and below from three to four copies. —Quondum 03:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all. I had considered nominating one or other of these myself when it appeared in the list of recently created maths articles, but did not have time to look into it. I did find a previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricomplex number, which may or may not be on the same topic. But on their own merits these do not belong on WP.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated that other one, but I don't remember it well enough to tell how similar they are. Reyk _YO! 11:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article was apparently about an algebra isomorphic to R⊕C, and this one to C⊕C⊕C⊕C. —Quondum 12:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Save ALL. Theses pages are a wonderful tool for everybody who loves fractals. Not only mathematicians, but also artists, philosophers and computer scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.172.51 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — 45.72.172.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Save ALL. The informations on this page is relevant, accurate and can be found elsewhere in the literature: ^[1], ^[2] RaphGL (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — RaphGL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

1. Lantoine, Gregory, Ryan P. Russell, and Thierry Dargent. "Using multicomplex variables for automatic computation of high-order derivatives." ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) 38.3 (2012): 16
2. Reid, F.L. & Van Gorder, R.A. Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras (2013) 23: 237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00006-012-0369-x

• Delete all per Quondum and David Eppstein. The Lantoine et al. (2012) and Reid et al. (2013) papers mentioned above are about multicomplex numbers and do not make the case that the "tricomplex numbers" are an interesting special case, or that the "tetrabrot" is an interesting object. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The tricomplex space considered by G.B. Price and this Wiki page is isomorphic to C⊕C⊕C⊕C not C⊕C⊕C. The number of principal 3D slices of the multicomplex Mandelbrot set is then maximal in the tricomplex space with all the possible combinations of imaginary and hyperbolic units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.209.3.30 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — 132.209.3.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Save ALL. I completely agree with the last comment, moreover the Tetrabrot is the special 3D slice where each sides of the set is the Mandelbrot set itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.169.78.4 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — 142.169.78.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete all for violating core policy NO Original Research, content undersouced not shown to meet GNG no evidence of its importance  — Ammarpad (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Save. I'm a computer scientist, not sure to understand the concept of direct sum and other math stuff, but the quaternionic Mandelbrot set, the Mandelbulb and the Tetrabrot are amazing 3D Fractals. For us, they can be used in virtual reality and video games... For ex. in the Disney movie Big Hero 6, the emotional climax takes place in the middle of a wormhole, which is represented by the stylized interior of a Mandelbulb. Please don't remove this page !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.242.232 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — 70.50.242.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Everything in the related Wiki articles are referred to scientific published articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.209.3.30 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Save. As a programmer, I'd like to thank the author (Mathopo) of the "Tetrabrot" and the "Tricomplex numbers" pages. The current work is indeed an excellent basis for fractal exploration. If I understand well, tricomplex numbers are a particular case of multicomplex numbers, for wich the Wikipida page is already accepted since 10 years ago. I disagree that the "Tricomplex numbers" page is unuseful and redundant, because it shows a detailed multiplication tables for tricomplex numbers, which is usefull for a non multicomplex expert. --ComputedMathArts (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]