Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numeric spiral

Add links
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numeric spiral[edit]

Original research. Title is protologism.  --LambiamTalk 04:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You should have been bold, and just redirected this to Ulam spiral, and if you didn't feel bold, then a prod. I see no point in taking the energy to call for a full AfD vote for something like this. linas 04:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing described is not a Ulam spiral. It is a badly designed visual representation of dividing up the natural numbers in equivalence classes modulo 9 while marking the prime numbers. Putting them in the form of a spiral serves no particular purpose and does not help to bring to light any properties. I see no reason to assume that a reader looking for "numeric spiral" is in search of the Ulam spiral.  --LambiamTalk 04:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; but {{prod}} would have been enough. Septentrionalis 05:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Huh? - Richfife 06:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I think linas is right. A reader searching for "numeric spiral" is likely doing so because of web articles mentioning things like "number spiral" [1]. Michael Kinyon 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save String theory have to deal with 10 dimension. I think maybe the 6 lines of Numeric spiral represents the dimensions we cant see and prime numbers maybe have low density as we get out of the center. So we get confused with 3 normal dimensions.

--Noluz 13:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you are looking for prime numbers this spiral will help you lines 3 6 9 dont have primes. It will take 33% numbers away (maybe important in computer softweare).

Propertys of number 9. I ask why if you multiply any number with 9 and latter add every digit your result will be 9. The explanation is simple all numbers are in line 9 in the spiral. --Noluz 14:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply Why use a spiral? Why not a 9 column wide grid? Why is this method of finding primes any better than any other? I can guarantee that its prime finding properties break down very quickly. The article (and your AfD contributions) just seem like a random assortment of unrelated terms and concepts jumbled together. - Richfife 16:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ReplyRichfife do you have the prime example that break the rule--Noluz 17:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Let me rephrase this. Lines 3, 6, and 9 do not have prime numbers in them because... all numbers in those lines are divisible by 3. This is because 3 evenly divides the number of lines in the spiral (9). So all this spiral is saying is that prime numbers are not divisible by 3. Not to put too fine a point on it, but we already knew that. - Richfife 17:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research - and, as stated above, it doesn't appear to demonstrate any useful properties. Zetawoof(ζ) 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyThanks Zetawoof for original reserch.But think in atomic gluonic interaccion why 8 gluon insted of 9 y think that spiral represents that interaccion.In line 9 is free pass for gluons in other lines like I said in the conclusions of numeric spiral there are multiply factors.Thanks to all.--Noluz 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like to here more opinions.--Noluz 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Why spanish wikipedia accept the article "Espiral numérica" maybe the article needs a good translation--Noluz 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Zetawoof didn't mean that as a compliment. Original research is reason for articles to be removed from Wikipedia, not kept. Wikipedia is not the place for this, even if it was valid. Oh, and please stop bringing random scientific stuff up. It confuses the issue for no reason and pushes the article closer to complete bollocks territory. - Richfife 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exact problem is name article--Noluz 23:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request Can someone with a better understanding of spanish than mine go look at the original version of the article: es:Espiral numérica and see if there's something there that's being lost in translation? Thanks! - Richfife 23:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did. The content is effectively identical. For example, the first paragraph beyond the TOC translates roughly thus:
      "One interesting result that we emphasize is that the lines which contain the digits 3, 6, and 9 don't contain primes, while the others do. (These points have the same digits as the cabalistic number 142857.)"
    This is slightly more coherent than the English version, but doesn't state anything new, mathematically. I've asked a Spanish friend of mine to go ahead and nominate it for deletion as well, and remove references to it from articles such as es:Teoría de supercuerdas (superstring theory). Zetawoof(ζ) 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • you can made the Ulam grid insted of spiral and you will see diagonal structure also.--Noluz 01:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to change article category to Numerology maybe this is better--Noluz 05:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Spanish article isn't particularly well-written either, and I'd guess that "Betancor" and User:Noluz are one and the same - ie. it's a vanity article. Tpth 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right Tpth--Noluz 06:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - badly written OR. The parts that are comprehensible are trivial. Gandalf61 15:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think that the lines 3 6 9 are with no primes because 3 divides

them but in spiral you know that by add numbers which is easyer than division.--Noluz 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply This isn't really the right place for this, but determining whether a number is divisible by 3 is very easy. Add up the digits and if the result is divisible by 3, the original number is also. Making a spiral is much more difficult and error prone. Creating a spiral to determine if 1375 is divisble by 3? Shudder... - Richfife 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply 1375=7=1+3+7+5=16=1+6=7 then 1375 is not divisible by 3

you dont have to construct the hole spiral.--Noluz 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. I don't understand the point of this discussion. The spiral described in the article is as conventional and ugly as it gets. It shows no new mathematical property, it is a highly unefficient way to search for prime numbers, it has a terrible presentation, it is original research, its creator shows ostentation in the article, and the supposed mystic properties of the drawing are against the neutral point of view requirement. The article should have been deleted without discussion. It resembles the job of a 5-year-old kid who wants to make an encyclopedic article about a drawing he made in kindergarten. Wikipedia is not the right place for this kind of material. --Michael Retriever 21:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyMaybe a kid will be interesed in spiral and learn more of numbers that in normal way of teaching.--Noluz 22:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is original research, and Wikipedia is not the place to include it. Moreover, as admitted by Noluz in the above discussion, this is a vanity article, which Wikipedia recommends deleting. George J. Bendo 11:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources --> no article. Barcex 13:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply What sources are you meaning. I am the creator and is easy math everyone can verify it.--Noluz 15:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply This discussion has mentioned the problem with Original research a number of times. Please follow the link and read it. Thanks! Click on the next two words with your mouse if you don't understand: Original research - Richfife 19:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Restated in brief: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unless this "numeric spiral" has been published in a mathematical journal or is otherwise accepted by the mathematical community at large, it's not suitable for Wikipedia. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:20, 9 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Numeric_spiral&oldid=1070787306"