Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transreal number line

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 - (WP:NOR). Proto::type 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transreal number line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No ghits for this term. Suspect original research. Denni ^talk 20:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the external link, new terminology from a paper scheduled for publication next year. Fan-1967 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "original research" related to unpublished research presented by an editor, not to published research. I wrote the treansreal numberl line article to support a longer article I was planning to write on transreal numbers which, in turn, would link to the page perspex machine. Whilst the article on the perspex machine relates to my research, I did not initiate that page, nor did I write more than a very small fraction of it. Most of what I contributed to the perspex machine article was corrections. If there is an article on transreal numbers then it can be used to clarify the perspex machine entry and to present a more neutral view in various mathematical pages. However, if it is policy not to accept articles written by the original author of external material then I will refrain from initiating any article that relates to my research. Please do advise me on this point before I go to any more effort on this.

Please note that it is SPIE policy to allow web publication, as cited, pending publication on paper. But it is certainly possible to wait for paper publication before supplying a linkg to the web version. But if it is policy to avoid neologisms then I could simply wait a few years to see if secondary sources become available.

Thanks, James A.D.W. Anderson 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, what we wish to document is established knowledge in science, not newly presented thought. In five years, this may be considered established teaching, or may not. Right now, it is not widely accepted (or even used at all, it seems) terminology. Its publication here is premature. Fan-1967 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree with James that it is a bit of a stretch to call this original research, given that it's accepted for publication. There is no policy not to accept articles written by the original author of external material, but most of us are deeply suspicious about such articles and therefore it is strongly discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). It is however policy to avoid neologisms (see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). However, the real problem with transreal number line, as Fan-1967 indicates, is that the term is not used at all. In my opinion, one paper in workshop proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering is not enough to support a Wikipedia article on a mathematical concept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR. The statement that the numberhood of the infinities distinguishes this from the extended reals is meaningless.  --Lambiam^Talk 02:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm finding google hits and refereed works. Michael Hardy 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK, I'm finding TWO google hits that are about this same concept; this one seems quite likely a refereed publication. If so, this Wikipedia entry is not "original research". Michael Hardy 20:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one may be identical in content to the other, and has the advantage that you can read it without registering. Michael Hardy 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the concept is not new, but the name seems to be a neologism. Computer science guys have versions of this, with lots of different NaN's. I am certain I heard of the thing in grade school, but don't know what name it was given then. I take Φ to be a nimber, namely Conway's star. (Just in case its not obvious why Φ is star, refer to Conway's book, wherein division is defined through an axiomatic system for numbers and games, and zero divided by zero is indeterminate, its star. Among other things, you'll find a proof that star is greater than -1 but less than +1 and is incomparable to everything in between. Sadly, we have no articles on this in WP, but I would prefer that such concepts be treated in terms of the sound, well-developed, commonly accepted axiomatic footing, rather than invented from scratch, on a whim). I'm not convinced there is a need for the current article, it seems awfully simplisitic. linas 15:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see this as original research at least until the paper is published. Even though "original research" is sometimes used as an epithet indicating that something is unverifiable, in this case, I am not saying that at all. Rather, the research is original, and Wikipedia, being an encyclopædia, prefers to be a secondary source. By publishing your research here you are turning Wikipedia into a primary source. 69.140.173.15 17:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.