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. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Irrational Number Generator[edit]

The Irrational Number Generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Name of the article does not occur anywhere in the real world (google search, google scholar search, google books search) with that meaning. Notability of the subject not established. Accuracy of the theorem not established. References of the present version are not relevant to the stated theorem, only to Fermat's Last Theorem. There may be other reasons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cleanup This article seems to need more cleaning up and clarification, rather than a deletion. Amelia Nymph (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. I see nothing that could be kept on a cleanup. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment By "not established", I mean "not established", I mean not only "not established", but also "doubtful". Sorry I didn't make that clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question — is there an actual name for this theorem? I say because "The Irrational Number Generator" would generally not be accepted as a name for a notable theorem in mathematics — maybe an algorithm, but certainly not a theorem, lemma, etc. MuZemike (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unless anyone here is a mathematician, I honestly don't see how this panel can come to a conclusion. Seems ignorant just to delete it because no one understands it /or/ understands where it came from and what not. Amelia Nymph (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and apology. I hadn't noticed it was a simple restatement of Fermat's Last Theorem. The article author, by not using standard Wikipedia or mathematical conventions is making it difficult to understand. Still a "delete" as no such name in the real world anywhere, but, if some reference for that restatement being used in the real world can be found, place the restatement in Fermat's Last Theorem in a subsection denoted "alternative formulations". As for "not being a mathematician", see Arthur Rubin. Grumble. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe instead of just tersely demanding a deletion you could explain in polite, plain English what your concerns are? You expect the creating editor to adhere to standard Wikipedia and mathematical conventions, yet you have made no effort to retool the article to be more wikilike nor have you explained your reasons in simple enough English for others to understand. Are you assuming good faith here, or just piling on template after template to prove your case?--otherlleft (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If I wasn't terse, my reasons would be longer than the "article". In any case, I placed a clean proof of the equivalence on the talk page, for the benefit of those who haven't looked at Fermat's Last Theorem before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
• Delete The subject of the article is a trivial (and, I think, uninteresting) restatement of Fermat's Last Theorem. It does not occur under this name in the mathematical literature, and quite possibly does not appear in the literature at all. If it is mentioned significantly in the literature, its proper place is in Fermat's Last Theorem. Algebraist 19:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. I understand it and even if it was vaguely notable which it isn't it would only be a minor corollary. Dmcq (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Worth a sentence at Fermat's Last Theorem? Possibly. Worth a separate article? No. Geometry guy 20:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is clearly written despite the fact that it doesn't conform to Wikipedia conventions, and all it does is prove a trivial corollary of Fermat's last theorem. It may be worth stating the corollary and proof far more tersely than this in some other article. It's not worth an article. The article says "was already known". What does that mean? The context makes it look as if it means "was known before this Wikipedia article". That makes it appear that the author is claiming that this is original research. Wikipedia has a policy against original research. But I think inclusion of this simple proof, tersely stated, in some Wikipedia article, even without references, would not violate that prohibition, because the proof is readily checked by anyone who knows high-school algebra. The title "The Irrational Number Generator" is very silly, even if not for the fact that the presence of the word "the" and all those capital initial letters are against Wikipedia naming conventions. There are plenty of similar, and simpler, ways to "generate" irrational numbers; to say that this is "the" way to do it is ridiculous. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a number theorist, but Arthur Rubin's proof on the talk page is exceptionally simple and clear. The article, it seems, amounts to a non-notable textbook exercise-level variant on Fermat's Last Theorem. RayAYang (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge into Fermat's Last Theorem. After having read the theorem carefully, it seems to be a fancy restatement of the famous theorem. MuZemike (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge per MuZemike. I like smerges. They're tasty. bd2412 T 05:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails Wikipedia:N in its own right as well as effectively being a cleverly reworded version of Fermat's Last Theorem. It also sports a ridiculous title that sports a pathetic 3 hits in google, two of which relate to the Wikipedia article itself! Kieranmrhunt (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete math at this level is way over my head. But clearly non-notable. Can't find it in any of the peer-reviewed papers that are filled with things that are also over my head but that allow me to, at least, confirm they actually exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not a good article, according to User: Arthur Rubin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.222.8 (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While I do not understand it, it seems to be a valid theory. I'd delete it if someone chould convince me that it was original research. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. After consideration, some of my concerns were met, but it's still unsourced, and trivially equivalent to Fermat's Last Theorem, and never called "Irrational Number Generator". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's perfectly valid, but it's trivial. We should not keep as an article everything that's just a routine homework exercise in elementary algebra. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2008 (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.