Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivation of the partition function
article is barely coherent and full of misinformation. some examples:
- it gives at least two fundamentally erroneous statements re ergodicity. it confused ergodicity with the a priori equal probability assumption in the first section. and the statement "... (otherwise, we would have ergodicity with respect to particle number). ..." is simply nonsensical.
- the derivation is awkward and unilluminating.
- the last expression in the first section is precisely the canonical partition partition. yet, immediately below, the article claims " The previous derivation is too restricted..." then apparently proceeds to "derive" canonical ensemble.
- the last section proposes to derive the grand canonical ensemble, so why not give the grand partition function explicitly?
In summary, the article is possibly correct information that is at least awkwardly arranged or misarranged (one can probably find pieces of it here and there in some texts), with incorrect statements and no clear understanding demonstrated throughout. Mct mht 21:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
my response to a prev removal of prod tag where an apparently generic justification is given:
"someone has removed the deletion tag and gave the following edit summary: (rm prod tag. mistakes in content aren't a reason to delete. if the material is irrelevant, double check that it's all covered elsewhere then make it a redirect.) if this kind of incoherence doesn't warrant deletion, then what does. one shouldn't weigh in unless 1. one has the background and is wiliing to rewrite and salvage this article, or 2. has knowledgable rebuttal to the points raised above. furthermore, as stated in the tag added, same material is covered in other relevant pages in much more legible fashion. Mct mht 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)"