Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-ones vector
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All-ones vector[edit]
- All-ones vector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-explanatory notion. Even though it's used in many books, I couldn't find any engaging in the pedantry of defining it, so a separate article seems unwarranted as a trivial mathematical WP:DICTDEF. Agreed to delete in this discussion at WT:WPM but deprodded by an uninvolved admin. So here we go by the book. Pcap ping 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not suitable for Wikipedia; maybe suitable for Wiktionary. Delete it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It started with this question, The all-ones vector, and how to notate it, on the reference desk, after which the questioner then seemed to think it was worthy of its own article. In some ways almost notable in a "how not to follow up on a unresolved RD post" way. But as a maths topic no.--John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 21:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: with Boolean algebras canonically defined. The term is used that article and Boolean algebras seem to be the only area where it's used in a non-trivial way. I suggest adding the definition to the Boolean algebras article even though the term is self-explanatory, if only for completeness. There is an article (Zhegalkin polynomial, also Boolean algebra related) that links to this one and it could just as well point to the a definition in the Boolean algebras article. The notation section can be deleted, basically there is no standard notation and an unreferenced list of possible notations has little value.--RDBury (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure a merge+redirect is necessary. You can clarify the target article without much need to include the rater opaque definition from All-ones vector: "The all-ones vector for a specific basis of a specific vector space is the vector with a length of one when projected onto each basis vector." I had to read it twice the first time to figure out what it was saying, but then, I'm not a mathematician. Pcap ping 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that you mention it, it seems pretty unlikely that the sense intended in Boolean algebra has anything to do with vector spaces so copying the definition there wouldn't make sense. I still think the redirect should exist, but the definition should be rewritten and added to the Boolean algebra article.--RDBury (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The rewrite would be sum of the basis vectors, but why link? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that you mention it, it seems pretty unlikely that the sense intended in Boolean algebra has anything to do with vector spaces so copying the definition there wouldn't make sense. I still think the redirect should exist, but the definition should be rewritten and added to the Boolean algebra article.--RDBury (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure a merge+redirect is necessary. You can clarify the target article without much need to include the rater opaque definition from All-ones vector: "The all-ones vector for a specific basis of a specific vector space is the vector with a length of one when projected onto each basis vector." I had to read it twice the first time to figure out what it was saying, but then, I'm not a mathematician. Pcap ping 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikionary, failing which, Delete. Wikipedia is not for dictonary defitiontions, which this clearly seems to be. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This definition is unsourced (and clumsy, so it may not be sourceable). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 14 January 2010 (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.