Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oneness (mathematics)

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 No consensus to delete - Merge to Collatz conjecture ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oneness (mathematics)

Contested prod. Useless neologism for the Collatz problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless - already covered in Collatz problem. At the very best it should just be a redirect, but I'd prefer a delete. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mathematical content of this is already covered in Collatz problem, as QuiteUnusual says (and as I previously stated in the prod that was removed). A Google scholar search reveals that "oneness" is not a standard word to use in this context, so it would be pointless to try to merge what little content there is here into the Collatz article; I think it should just be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Salix (talk): 14:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Collatz conjecture. For the benefit of those who will wonder what the discussion is about, Collatz described an operative procedure starts with "if a number is even then divide it by 2, if a number is odd then multiply it by 3 and add 1"; eventually, you will reach the number 1, after which the sequence "4, 2, 1" repeats infinitely. The conjecture is that no matter what positive integer you start with, you will eventually reach one; however, the conjecture remains unproven. What's described here as "oneness" is the number of steps it takes to reach the number 1, and a link is given to suggest that that pattern can't be predicted. Thus, for numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the number of steps is 3, 4, 7, 2 and 5 respectively. Mandsford (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Collatz conjecture. The material is already covered there, except possibly the terminology, which is almost all that is in this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is whether this terminology is notable enough to warrant mention in Collatz conjecture; my feeling is that it isn't. If it isn't, should we have the redirect? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 20 October 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.