Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selector calculus

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 no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Selector calculus

Completely uncritical article on alleged mathematical background for a cranky topic called Heim theory. See talk page for various comments to the effect that there is no such topic known in mathematics, and the unmotivated claims made without proof in the article run counter to well-known mathematical knowledge. The existing article on Heim theory seems adequate without littering the WP with a half dozen articles on subtopics which are not part of mainstream knowledge. This is an encyclopedia and it should focus on mainstream knowledge, not attempt to give exhaustive descriptions of every crank theory which has ever been proposed! CH 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How dare you call this a cranky theory. Heim was known to Heisenberg and worked with Jourdan and Von Weizacker. Just becuase he was somewhat eccentric in eschewing the normal academic processes in favour of a hermetic existence does not give you the right to label him with repulsive epithets such as 'crank' - he was removed from that category in Wikipedia long ago. Familiarise yourself with the maths before shooting off your mouth like this.--hughey 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• delete - junk William M. Connolley 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep By analogy there is a "proof" that 0.999... = 1.000 that also involves cancelling infinities, but it has a certain instructive utility and it is not rejected as "junk" mathematics. Ruby 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The difference is that the proof that 0.999... = 1.000 is accepted by the mathematical community and mentioned in many text books, while selector calculus is not accepted and not mentioned in the mathematics literature. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I was originaly going to vote merge into Heim theory. But then I came across this New Scientist article [1], so it seems like Heim's work is not quite as cranky as nominator makes out. --Salix alba (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On reflection I'd be happy with a merge. Easy either way. --Salix alba (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't know what's going on with the Heim business, but there is no mathematical subject of selector calculus AFAIK nor do the standard mathematical resources such as MathSciNet mention it. The article doesn't even make clear what "selector calculus" is. Given its lack of references and general lack of clarity, I fear this article might be falling into the original research category. I think we should focus on these issues, rather than confuse the matter by in effect merging this discussion with the Heim theory discussion. --C S (Talk) 11:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Among other problems, one is that this article doesn't define what selector calculus is. Thus, there is no way to validate it, or to discuss its technical merits, or to apply it in any real-life calculation. linas 14:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Chan-Ho. Unverifiable. Since the article mentions language difficulties, I also looked through Zentralblatt MATH to cover the German literature, but with no success. The New Scientist article does not mention selector calculus. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to be part of Heim's production. As the article says, it is supposed to be something like tensor calculus but without infinitesimals or limits tending to 0. Apparently it is covered in Part III (pages 99-172) of "Elementarstrukturen der Materie 1: Einheitliche strukturelle Quantenfeldtheorie der Materie und Gravitation" by Heim, published in 1978/1980 and a second edition in 1989.--Henrygb 01:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: it's good that a reference has been provided, but the problems with the article remains. Additionally, the reference is good if someone were able to understand it and write an article based on it, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. It still doesn't explain what selector calculus is, although it says it's "something like" something else and makes an unsubstantiated claim that it is something very near tensor calculus. The only other info in the article is rather muddled and nonsensical:

"The approach differs from conventional differential calculus which does not place a finite lower bound on infinitesimals. In selector calculus, the limit of Riemann sums taken to infinity has no physical interpretation, as the smallest unit of measure is a metron, rather than infinitesimal."

Since I know "conventional differential calculus", I can say this comparison is wrong as it shows a misunderstanding of calculus. The article also says, "See Heim theory for details." Well, if the article on selector calculus refers to another article for an explanation of what selector calculus is, what's the point of having such an article? Since all the details are apparently in the Heim theory article anyway, a merge would appear pointless; I'm sticking with my 'delete' vote. --C S (Talk) 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As someone has added the above reference to the article, I think we should know how you got that reference and why you think the selector calculus is "apparently" covered in it. There's an issue of verifiability here, besides the other issues that have been mentioned. (Note: I have removed the reference from the article as I don't believe at this point that the editor had actually used the reference to verify the information) --C S (Talk) 10:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This might be from this page (the German version is better if you can read it), which says: "Accordingly, a whole chapter in [1] is devoted to the development of a difference calculus considering the finite area [the metron]. This enables any differential expression to be metronized." However, the basic problem remains: the article is not encyclopaedic because it does not attempt to define selector calculus, and it also seems to be not notable: it is not clear whether the calculus has been used by anybody but Buckhard Heim himself, and even if it has, nobody except for the handful of people working on Heim theory have used it. So, I remain of the opinion that the article should be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge Based on Jitse Niesen's comment above, would it be a satisfactory alternative to merge the article with the existing articles related to Heim? Perhaps not notable in and of itself, but since it shows up in Heim theory, perhaps this would be a better alternative. I would not want to lose this content - it is not written very well compared to other articles, but surely if someone had the time to look at it, they could exapand the material. --HappyCamper 14:20, 12 February 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.