Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical mathematics

Classical mathematics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Classical mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a thing. It claims to be about "classical mathematics", in distinction to constructivist approaches, but this distinction is actually entirely about classical logic, a topic for which we already have an article and do not need a second one. My WP:BLAR (a redirect to classical logic) was reverted by an anonymous user, un-reverted by CFA, reverted again by the anon, and supported by Викидим, so rather than continuing to edit-war over the redirect we should discuss it. Here is the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Classical logic: as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. An article already exists on classical logic. C F A 💬 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. As I have requested, please give me a day. The topic seems to be wider than constructivist / nonconstructivist disagreements over logic foundations. That said, I did not support the anon, and explicitly commented that "I am not sure this topic deserves an article, but I will try". --Викидим (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Now that I did some reading (and a little bit of writing), here are the arguments:

1. The term is much broader than just foundations of mathematics
2. There are plenty of sources discussing the classical mathematics
3. It has little to do with the Classical logic

A merge into the Foundations of mathematics can be considered. --Викидим (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

What are some of these sources? Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Many works on constructive math provide large discussion on its counterparts and summarize the differences. For an extreme example, an entire volume dedicated to this topic:

• Sommaruga, G. (2011). Foundational Theories of Classical and Constructive Mathematics. The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science. Springer Netherlands. ISBN 978-94-007-0431-2. Retrieved 2024-07-18.

Large amount of works discuss the classical math in the more broad sense: as a list of results (mostly of 19th century) underlying the modern mathematical research, a vocabulary that a mathematician has to know in order to understand the colleagues, for example:

• Koch, H. (2012). Introduction to Classical Mathematics I: From the Quadratic Reciprocity Law to the Uniformization Theorem. Mathematics and Its Applications. Springer Netherlands. ISBN 978-94-011-3218-3. Retrieved 2024-07-18.

Викидим (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)