Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of one divided by zero

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of one divided by zero[edit]

I prodded this page which appears to be about an entirely unnotable theory. (no Google hits, no references). The author objected, so I've done him the favour of moving the debate here where it can get wider exposure. See also User talk:Bossk2 DJ Clayworth 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not for something dreamed up in school today ... delete BigDT 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That statement can possibly be disproven
  • Delete -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete This Article This article is a gift of knowledge given graciously by it's creator to the free beings of humanity. Furthermore, it is correct, and it is the first theory ever to describe the mathematical properties of everything, which is a real number. Therefore this theory is seminal and unprecedented and deleting it would be a great injustice. The article may not be found noted anywhere because it is entirely original and unique and has been realized for the first known time in history, by the author himself. That is why it is imperative that the article remain for the sake of historical documentation and also for the free enlightenment of everyone who cares to know about the number everything. Deleting this article would be a shame to the free evolution of knowledge and an impediment to mankind's destiny of understanding the universe. Respectfully Bossk2 21:32, 8 May 2006
  • Delete this horror - This is an obvious prank. Beltz 21:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are wong, this is not a prank. Saying this is a prank appears to be ignorant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossk2 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as Original Research, regardless of its quality or validity. Fan1967 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fan1967 (I may I add that I stil think it is a joke). Lundse 22:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, meaningless and admittedly OR. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete posthaste. Unfortunately it's not a prank. I'm afraid the author really thinks this is meaningful. Violates WP:NOR and WP:V. LambiamTalk 23:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It possibly is a prank, but if not, then it's total rubbish. - Richardcavell 23:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a high school level take on a mathematical concept of which the author obviously has no real understanding - furthermore it is more spiritualism than mathematics; it might work here after he's started a successful cult, but not now--Invisifan 23:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try to avoid personal attacks, thanks. Fagstein 19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 00:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—To be honest, I stopped reading after the introduction, but it seems like the direction of the article is nonsense. As a comment on the "theory" itself, "everything" can never be a real number because that's not the way the definition works. Ardric47 04:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • admittedly the article was written somewhat poorly but I believe it's been revised. I wonder, if everything can not be a real number, then perhaps you can tell us how the definition works.
  • Greetings, and thank you all for your concern and interest in this article. The article has been revised for readability so I encourage all of you to re-read it. Also, be sure you look at the image of the number circle (http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/sect/?action=view&current=circle_of_everything.jpg) because otherwise you will not be able to grasp the theory. Also I may note that the article has nothing to do with spirituality. This confusion was probably due to the inclusion of the word absolution which links to a Roman Catholic entry. This word was removed as that is not what it was supposed to refer to. Also the author wishes me to make an article about the number circle, because it is probable that the number circle will be accepted and will eventually replace the number line in textbooks. I also wish to note that this is not original "research." It is, however, an original realization that has been made by the author, which can and has been made by other people as well (they are now listed in the beginning of the article). Again, I encourage everyone to re-read the article as it has been improved and hopefully you will find it more compelling.
    • The changes were mostly minor, and the article still isn't really about anything of consequence... Ardric47 04:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The changes make the article much more understandable. The article is about 1/0 which has been ignored by mathemeticians (sort of swept under the rug) and which deserves more attention and investigation. 129.138.2.196 05:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
      • I don't know how much this needs to be argued, but 1/0 has not been ignored. I learned about it in class in high school. 1/0 is in general "undefined", but there are various circumstances that "look like" 1/0 that resolve to infinity (often), or sometimes 0, or 1, or something else. It depends on the context. Ardric47 05:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but in it's pure form 1/0 is greater in absolute value than either negative or positive infinity. Also when you say it resolves to 0 or 1 you may be referring to 0/0 which is not the same thing. 1/0 is the same thing as 2/0 but it is different than 0/0. Did you look at the image of the number circle? http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/sect/circle_of_everything.jpg Bossk2 05:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
          • Yes, I saw it. It's a nice picture, but not very useful for anything. And are we dealing with sockpuppets, or are there multiple people involved in supporting this? Ardric47 05:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm glad you asked. Yes, this theory was also essentially realized by Arceliar and Edward Solomon. See this page http://owl.infosys.utas.edu.au/mathemagicians_circle/table22.html. Also, other supporters are on their way. Ummm, the number circle is useful for understanding the fact that the number line is really a number circle. Quite important if you ask me.
  • Delete... This is an obvious joke that makes no sense to the average person (and so to me qualifies as {{nonsense}}.) Grandmasterka 05:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because you can not understand the theory does not mean it should be deleted. Really the only people who have any validity critiquing this theory is mathemeticians. They will probably approve of it once they see what the author has realized.129.138.2.196 05:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
      • Ok, I'm close enough to being a mathematician to say that it should be deleted. Ardric47 07:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree, because you did not even know that 1/0 is a different thing than 0/0
      • Comment My degree is Math (though I wouldn't say I'm a mathematician per se) and I see what hes's saying -- it's a lot like the filler we published in the Math faculty student newspaper back in the day as a joke -- there are whole obscure branches of math dating back centuries in this field and mathematically this is simplistic rubbish, and very reminiscent of the ancient Greek philosophy schools that were also part spiritual (and gave us such lasting concepts as the 4 elements: earth, air, fire & water) -- he's just a couple of millennia too late
        • Mr. Walstad's degree is in Physics and Environmental Engineering and he knows what he is talking about. I am not sure what obscure branches of math you are referring to (perhaps your reference is obscure as well) but Brahmagupta was the only mathemetician to ever address the issue of one divided by zero seriously Bossk2 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
  • Comment—There are two related articles, Lee Field Walstad and Walstad's Paradox. Ardric47 07:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment An obvious and unfortunate oversight. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm close enough to being a mathematician to think this is complete bollocks. --Bduke 07:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Badly written hoax or merely deranged kookery. -- GWO
  • Strong Delete as orginal research WP:OR. I am in no position to verify its academic soundness, but the author of the article seals the case when he/she writes above "The article may not be found noted anywhere because it is entirely original and unique". --BrownHairedGirl 08:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you all again for your interest in this potentially ground breaking theory. I am the spokesperson and I wish to point out that the co-author of this theory tested in the top %99 for math on the ACT, and he is currently gaining his degree in Physics and Environmental Engineering at New Mexico Tech and is in high standing, and high esteem with the professors who think his theory is very fascinating and holds much promise. If you do not believe me you can email Dr. Lisa Young (pHd) who knows Lee and who teaches Astrophysics at his college. Her email is [email protected] but if you must e-mail her please do not bother her in a rude way. Also as the spokesperson I would like to say that this is not original research, it is merely a wonderful and true realization which the author has made and which anybody can see for themselves. Therefore it does not need to only be published in a scientific journal, it needs to be available for free to everyone regardless of anything. Also this article on wikipedia is important for historical documentation because Mr. Walstad is the first person in history to have publicly announced these realizations in such a way. 1/0 has not been covered by mathemeticians accept for Brahmagupta who is respectfully listed in the article. 1/0 is the most important concept ever which has been ignored by people for centuries and which holds the key to all understanding. Therefore I implore the community not to delete this article and instead to think about what it is saying with a little bit more respect please. You may be amazed when you realize that it is theoretically correct.Bossk2 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
So why not get your work published somewhere else? Wikipedia is NOT for original research, however briliant that research is. Please take a few minutes to read WP:OR. --BrownHairedGirl 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the question Brown Haired Girl. I think I may have adressed your question in the new introduction for the article129.138.2.196 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
  • Comment The article was just edited again. I added a reference and also a list of related topics
  • Comment I just want to let everybody know that I am not a sockpuppet. I am in no way trying to hide the fact that I am Lee Walstad. The reason why I say I am only a spokesperson for the author of this theory is because I did not invent the theory of everything; everything is the author of the theory of everything. I am merely a realizer. And also I want to remind everyone to assume good faith, as that is your official policy. Sincerely, Bossk2 19:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
  • Delete - ...regardless of the number of new edits. It should be noted is the only votes not to delete so far have come from the author (sorry--realizer) of the article. No original research --Lostart 19:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully object because all the people who have nominated for deletion are only those who do not understand the theory and this is not grounds for deletion. Furthermore the theory is not original research, it is only an inherent realization which anybody can make for themselves and which is the sole property of 1/0 itself. Therefore it does not qualify as original research. Respectfully, Bossk2 20:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
  • Comment. I see the new "reference" is pretty well a copy of the article to an e-mail list on the theory of everything. It has so far prompted one reply - "My calculator has the correct answer to the 1/0 problem; It says ERROR. Attempting to assign meaning to nonsense will only create more confusion.". I think that sums it up. bossk2, you asseretion that this is not original research does not make sense. It is OR. When there is a decent peer reviewed paper in a mathematical journal, come back and try again. --Bduke 22:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it seems all too often people respond negatively when they do not understand something. Apparently everyone thinks they have the authority to say this theory is wrong, just because they do not understand it, yet I find it funny that nobody realizes they have the authority to realize for themselves that it may be right. "Official" Peer reviewers will likely have the same problem and that is why this is a very big problem which only we have the power to effect. This is not original research because it involved no research, merely intuition, and common knowledge about the world around us, and that is a gift that everybody has. SO it is your responsibility to not follow a blind consensus and to think for yourself. Don't expect to surf the web and find the answer, the answer is in your own mind and in your ability to understand this article. Sincerely, 129.138.44.62 23:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
      • I understand it all too well. The theory is incorrect. You do not understand mathematics. "Common knowledge about the world around us" is not good enough to do good mathematics. Also using intuition is not good enough, but it is "Original research" even if it is bad research. It is not a matter for Wikipedia if you can not get peer reviewers to accept your paper in an academic mathematics journal. --Bduke 00:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your well based concern sir. However I think you are not truly considering what the article is saying and you are jumping to conclusions and not backing up your critique with any sort of concrete argument other than "this is false." Recall that I made a %99 on my ACT for math so I think I have a pretty darn good handle on it. What did you make on your ACT?
  • Comment—There is no "Lee Walstad" or similar name at the NMT Physics department website (the undergraduates are listed after the grad students). Ardric47 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate you researching this. I only took up the additional major of physics this semester and I never actually went through the process of acquiring a new advisor, so that is why I am not listed on the physics department homepage (a small technicality I think). Nevertheless, I have been studying physics for quite sometime and that is what I am enrolled in this semester. You should see me listed if you go to the environmental engineering department page. If you wish I can provide a scanned copy of my registration which shows that I am taking almost strictly physics courses this semester, even though I am not officially listed yet in the physics department. Also if you wish to e-mail Dr. Young who's e-mail I've listed above she will verify that I am indeed a student of physics at New Mexico Tech. She was my Astrophysics teacher last semester and she has been very encouraging of me and my theory. Just e-mail her if you really want, but be sure to be polite. Thank you for your interest and attention to this issue, 129.138.44.62 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
    • Well I just went to the environmental engineering department homepage and they do not list their students :( However, you can still verify that I go to New Mexico Tech by going to this page where I am listed as the treasurer of the caving club http://infohost.nmt.edu/~nmtcaver/aboutus.php; Also you can send me e-mail at [email protected] thanks 129.138.44.62 00:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
  • BJAODN? Melchoir 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a gift of something...though 'knowledge' isn't the word I'd use. --InShaneee 01:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I truly appreciate everybody's deep concern for whether this article is worthy of inclusion in the wikipedia which is definitely an awesome resource that I respect very highly. However, I am a little confused as to why people are having so much difficulty grasping the concept that 1/0 is the number everything. It seems quite plain to me, but perhaps it is still a bit difficult to wrap your mind around. I can understand that. Please give it time and these things will come to you. I have just received e-mail from Arceliar, the other one who has realized the same thing as I have (so you can see this is not original research, it has been realized by others besides me, but I am the one who has taken it upon himself to serve as spokesperson and bring the word to the people, so that you all can take part in this fascinating new realization about the theory of everything, 1/0). I think his comments are very intriguing and can shed light on this debate, and I will post them (provided I have Arceliar's permission) when I get back from a trip to the Gila Wilderness which my Dad has invited me on. Also when I come back in 5 days I will finish the article and show you all how it is possible to send something faster than the speed of light. Hopefully you will find this information valuable, and hopefully this debate will remain open until after that time. In good faith, 129.138.2.196 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
    • Adding an even more extraordinary claim to a "theory" that is already climbing on the crackpot index (although I'm grateful for the lack of blatant attacks) will probably not help you. Perhaps this is some sort of experiment to test what can "get through" in Wikipedia. Has anyone politely e-mailed Dr. Young? Ardric47 02:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not feed the trolls - It is now obvious that he is just looking to make us waste time responding to him. Beltz 02:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, good point. I can't say that I've noticed this happen on AfD before, though (has it?). Can this be deleted now per trends or WP:SNOW or something? Ardric47 03:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do not become apprehensive and lose your good faith, as I have come here in good faith, I swear it. I appreciate you for bolding the claim above. In good faith, when I come back, you will see that I will show you how to send something faster than the speed of light. You owe it to yourself to receive this information. Feel free to e-mail Dr. Young in the meantime and she will confirm that I have discussed with her my theory and that she encouraged me to go on and get a pHD because otherwise nobody would believe me (as is becoming evident by this discussion). Make sure however if you e-mail her that you are very polite and respectful because I do not want her to be mad at me for any reason. Sincerely, 129.138.2.196 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
  • Delete Unimportant, maybe a prank. Pvazz 03:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to reiterate that this is not a prank. All interested persons please refrain from claiming this is a prank because I have already sworn to you by my good faith that this is not a prank. Sincerely, 129.138.2.196 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)bossk2[reply]
  • Comment His email address has been verified. He is not a troll and does believe in this "theorem". Not that it changes the AfD in anyway but it does put things into perspective. -- 127.*.*.1 04:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. joturner 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR and WP:CRANK Georgewilliamherbert 04:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speaking as a mathematician, I feel confident in stating that this article is ill-considered claptrap, rubbish and nonsense. They laughed at Benjamin Franklin, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown -- GWO
    • you feel confident eh? But are you confident? It sounds like there could be some doubt there, and that's coming from a mathemetician.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.138.2.106 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Come back after you have had a peer-reviewed paper in a conference or journal. Mrjeff 11:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because some other people share the view presented in the article doesn't stop it from being original research, for which Wikipedia has no place. Regarding the content, what is true is not new, and what is new is not true. The author is invited to take a look at real projective line and realize that some of his ideas (regarding the number circle, etc.) are already known. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above wikipedian notes that the content in the article is already supported by articles contained on wikipedia. He then states that the other findings in the article are false, but he gives no reason why this must be so. This may appear to be an automatic response of his, because he is afraid of new knowledge, unless of course he can give sound reasoning why the premises in the disputed article must be false.
  • Keep This article is doing no harm. I think it is at least valuable enough to keep on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.138.2.106 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Likely sockpuppet for "bossk2". Fagstein 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as original research, or BJAODN. The validity of the theory is entirely irrelevant to AfD. The question is whether it is notable, verifiable information based on reliable sources. It is not, and hence must be deleted. Fagstein 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spatula. I mean, strong delete. The author is capable of answering everything except the call to original research. Since the article contains no references or any kind of backup outside the author's own writing, it should be deleted. The author appears to think that something that is obvious cannot be original research. 86.136.82.105 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I will extend that comment to note that the author should buy or get some webspace, and use that. If you really reckon that this is an omfgawesome article, then host it yourself, and word-of-mouth shall do the trick, right? 86.136.82.105 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article takes a LONG time to come to the point, and it appears to be this: in at least some contexts one may take 1/0 to be a sort of point at infinity that is approached by going in either of the two directions on the real line. This is convenient in projective geometry, in complex analysis, and sometimes in trigonometry. That has long been well known among mathematicians. It is explained in various other articles on Wikipedia. Those other articles are clearly written; this one is not. This article's assertion that this fact follows from, or perhaps was predicted by, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, is idiotic nonsense. This article also contains vast numbers of words that say nothing, including a long preface that leaves the reading with no idea of what the article will turn out to be about. Michael Hardy 20:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete times. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you know +1 = 1/0? And 1/0 + 1 = -? Fagstein 00:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Michael Hardy. —Ruud 21:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BALLS--Deville (Talk) 18:48, 11 May 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/Theory_of_one_divided_by_zero&oldid=1141940467"