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 Unzipped (a.k.a. Delete) -- as per the consensus of this discussion. Pastor Theo (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zipper theorem[edit]

Zipper theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The "theorem" is too obvious. Here is the better proof: That in a topological space ${\displaystyle a_{n))$ converges to a point L means that every neighborhood of ${\displaystyle L}$ contains all but finitely many ${\displaystyle a_{n))$. Obviously, if ${\displaystyle a_{n}\to L}$ and ${\displaystyle b_{n}\to L}$, then every neighborhood of ${\displaystyle L}$ contains all but finitely many ${\displaystyle a_{n))$ and ${\displaystyle b_{n))$. This is just logic. (What is not so obvious is that what if we have infinitely many sequences converging to L.) -- Taku (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. This appears to be a content dispute, or a reason to deny a patent, but not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 02:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Was originally going to say delete as a neologism or hoax, but Google Books yields two apparently legit references in mathematics textbooks (despite no relevant Google or Google Scholar hits), so I remain as a Weak keep unless someone can convince me otherwise. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 04:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Those are the same book in different editions, and this theorem is just an exercise; it's not actually discussed in the text. Algebraist 04:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete per further input above...I am now convinced of the subject's non-notability (fails points 1 and 4 of general notability guideline).-RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as the entry and comment immediately above combine to show this is a non-notable mathematical exercise (and the solution may be original research). No evidence that this theorem has any role except as a textbook exercise in a single textbook, and Wikipedia is not a textbook. Could possibly consider a transwiki to Wikiversity or Wikibooks but i'd be wary of the copyright implications of taking an exercise from a published book. Qwfp (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, per above. Paul August ☎ 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per WP:MADEUP and due to general lack of noteworthiness. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. This "theorem" is a good homework problem for a certain kind of undergraduate course. But only a good homework problem. And not a very hard one at all. Things like that have a place on the web, but an encyclopedia article isn't the right place. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep actual but minor theorem; is there a good rd target? JJL (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Should be redirected to the article on limits of sequences, where this can be mentioned in one sentence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[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.