Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantor-de Waal multiset

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cantor-de Waal multiset

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

A pointless concept with no references or google hits. Possibly a hoax or joke. r.e.b. (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Google scholar or books hits at all for the search phrase Cantor "de Waal" multiset ([1], [2]). Only a few web hits, but none of them appear to be relevant. Also, the article is unreferenced, and the "definition" is pure nonsense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, the author created a copy-paste article Pascal's hexagon and copied the entire "See also" and EL sections of this article from Order of magnitude. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm calling hoax on this one. Cornelis de Waal is a professor of philosophy at IUPUI ([3]). What the heck would he be doing mucking around with mathematical theory? KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm unwilling to call hoax based on his CV, since he's written a paper on “Why Metaphysics Needs Logic and Mathematics Doesn’t: Mathematics, Logic, and Metaphysics in Peirce’s Classification of the Sciences.” It's an area of interest of his; rather than a hoax, it may just be original research. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I hate to break it to you, but logic (including set theory) is an important branch of philosophy. Anyway, if this is genuine, it's not notable, so delete. Hairhorn (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inability to verify the term to any online sources, including publication titles on de Waal's university page. I'm still willing to assume good faith in the original editor, and I don't see a speedy deletion criterion that this article meets. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are sure this isn't a hoax? These multisets are particullarly useful for calculating cardinalities of Z-related infinite sets. In the case of finite sets of integers the method of Cantor-de Waal multisets reduces to the usual powers-of-2 calculation, however for infinite Z-related sets, the method of Cantor-de Waal multisets can be up to three orders of magnitude faster than any other method. implies that finding cardinalities of powers of Z is hard, which appears to be nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's more math than I got to in college, so I will defer to subject area experts. My comment was in response to Kuyabribri's assertion that no philosopher would be involved in math theory. (And that I didn't see anything so blatant in the hoax department that I was willing to delete it under G3 myself.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not G3; that is to say, it's not screamingly obvious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whoever wrote this seems to confuse multisets with sequences. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is silly and naive to say a philosopher wouldn't be doing mathematics. People can be interested in more than one topic, and there is a substantial intersection when the topic is logic. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability given and no one seems to be able to find any, that's sufficient cause to delete. Given that, much of this discussion is off topic; it makes no difference here whether philosophers can do math or not or, given that the topic isn't notable, whether it's a hoax or not or.--RDBury (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references and hence non-notable. Of course the reason for that is that it is a blatant hoax. Quotient group (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2009 (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.