Talk:Unifying conjecture

Votes for Deletion

The page in question has undergone a major rewrite and was moved to Unifying theories in mathematics. Here is the old discussion about deleting the earlier version.

  • Unifying conjecture - Empty theorising - nothing to save here in the big words. Charles Matthews 09:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:59, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Seems useful. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not useless. Eike 15:59, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Sounds familiar. Elf 17:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely keep, and hope someone expands. Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem has been a Holy Grail of mathematics for hundreds of years - no empty theorizing here, but needs someone strong in math to tackle Denni 01:58, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC) [retracted by Denni below--Jerzy]
      • Really, I do have the background; and this says nothing on FMT. It is someone's fringe view, and splices unification (which happens) and conjectures (which are made) to support a bogus model. Adding in a prestigious allusion is throwing dust in people's eyes. Redirect to conjecture. Charles Matthews 09:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Looking at your userpage, I can only marvel. I withdraw my suggestion completely. Continue the good work, sir! Denni 21:14, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC) [At least a retraction of keep, but is this a del vote? --Jerzy]
    • Delete. I don't really understand high level math, but it certainly seems that Charles Matthews does. [ignore unsigned vote; impracticable to trace via history --Jerzy]
    • Delete: original research on the topic of unifying conjectures. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:59, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del, tho uncomfortable w/ how much i (someone proud just to not mispronounce "Lie group") and others are relying on a single expert. --Jerzy 19:04, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
    • (comment) No disrespect to Charles Matthews, but there's not reason we need to rely on just one mathematician's opinion when There are plenty on this site. I'll ask AxelBoldt and a couple others for their comments. Isomorphic 21:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Reasons: 1. At best, the article consists of idiosyncratic original research. 2. Article was written by user:24 who has been hard banned for a long time. AxelBoldt 23:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Whatever the pros and cons of the current content (and it's not perfect but I rather like it) it's an excellent title for an approachable article describing how real mathematics works in terms motivated, intelligent non-mathematicians can understand. We need more like it. Andrewa 11:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.