Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclic permutation of integer

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 no consensus. There is no initiative to delete this article. The outcome will be renaming or merging but this can be decided on the talkpage. So I am closing this debate as a No consensus (a keep would not do much and there is not a clear consensus what to do with the article at the moment). Tone 11:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclic permutation of integer

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

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

Disjointed article, containing a fork of parasitic number and some extensions, some comments that might be suitable for repeating decimal, a few random mathematical results and proofs. The title, Cyclic permutation of integer seems to be newly created, and, although there have been some works on the parasitic numbers an and extensions, it mostly appears to be the ~~principle~~ principal editor's original work, although some of it is my original work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the principal editor referred to by Arthur Rubin. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has more data than the (generally better written cyclic number. Merge? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change title: If the title is a problem, I suggest a change in the title.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title is one of the problems. Most of the concepts seem not to have been published. Certainly the addition section belongs in Wikibooks, if you're willing to move it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a reliable concept and theorem, then think in terms of ~~cyclic~~ multiplicative group of integers modulo n . The numerators of the set of fractions representing the cyclic permutations are the elements of a ~~cyclic~~ subgroup. The denominator becomes the n used in the modulo. The group theory concept explains comprehensively.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ~~cyclic~~ subgroup is generated when multiplied by 10 (or b for any other bases) modulo n. Now do you still think the theory is something new? I am just applying the group theory without quoting the theory. I am still learning group theory though I know the theory has been in existence for a long time. Shall verifiability be so rigid that there must always be a writing when the theory has been in existence for a very long time...--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the name change, I have removed the 'addition' section which becomes irrelevant or trivial to the subject. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into cyclic number. Possibly some could go into repeating decimal. Anyway I'm pretty certain we don't need yet another article with an unknown name repeating the same subject as other articles that have known names. I am not sure some of the stuff like the extension to moving two digits around should be kept at all, shouldn't it at most just refer to a citation for things like that and not go on and on?. Is it really something that a number of people have shown interest in? I'm not totally convinced by the first paper in the references which after going into that has a chapter on 'More Digital Trivia'. Dmcq (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article is no more unknown. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dmcq, removing any OR. The parasitic number article has closely related material and might be merged as well if it wouldn't make the article too big. Not sure there's a reason to keep a redirect page if the terminology is non-standard, except to keep an archive of the talk page. For what it's worth, MathWorld does have an article for "Cyclic Number".--RDBury (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the endless arithmetic examples and the repetition and the special cases and the unsourced claims; whatever is left (if anything) can be merged into repeating decimal or cyclic number. But on no account merge the article without extensive trimming first. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last effort in saving the article. I have moved the article to Transposable integer. There are sources using this term:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the first reference book of the article, the following book quoted many other references:

Joe Roberts, PP26-27, Lure of the integers

There are also other sequences quoted as anagrams at http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=anagram&sort=0&fmt=0&language=english&go=Search in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences.

Would you re-consider since the subject is different from cyclic number and repeating decimal?

Merge with parasitic number: My most current opinion is thus staying as an independent article or merge with parasitic number--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~:I also copy the following posting at Talk:Cyclic number#Cyclic permutation of integer:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling Kah Jai (talk • contribs)

Actually, I think Cyclic permutation of integer should be merged with Parasitic number, if an appropriate name can be determined. It seems more appropriate than Cyclic number as a target. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The new name, transposable integer , has little reference in reliable sources. Google books (above) has one hit on point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about reviewed articles quoted by Joe Robert? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the article isn't about the name, it's that the subject here isn't different enough from existing articles to justify having a separate article on it. Closely related ideas should be combined into the same article where it makes sense, in order to prevent content fork issues for one thing and to show the relationship between the ideas for another.--RDBury (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has evolved to such a stage that it is very difficult to add new stuff to all existing articles. The new stuff usually get deleted by users. A good example: when I add a short section to parasitic number, the writing get deleted. Similarly, many users will object to appending the writing in this article (new concept) to repeating decimal and cyclic number, quoting OR. I received the same obstacles when I added stuff to track transition curve and later I was advised to start a new article euler spiral. I had very bad experience. I always thought that verifiability is something that can be verified, like simple mathematics or proof or something similar. Apparently I am wrong, it is different.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't mind where the writing is incorporated and think that I can contribute to Wikipedia. However my writing often get denied not because I am wrong. I usually get response like, "you are right, but...". I am really discouraged and lose my passion. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that but yes you've misunderstand verifiability. Here it means verifiable as an encyclopaedia entry where one can look up what's said, not that it's true. It also acts as a bar to original research and stuff of limited interest because it won't be written up in a reliable source somewhere. Dmcq (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that intrigues me: I refer to many mathematical (or other subjects) articles, I don't really see a lot of in-line citations. Most often people don't challenge writings or sources when they know that the statements are true, not that the writing has enough citations. Then the basis of deletion seems to be whether a user thinks the that the stuff is of interest to him or in his mind it is of interest to the public; rather than whether there is any source for the stuff. It is still his judgment, not the judgment of the public. Do you think so? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the mathematics articles often tend to a lower level of verifiability than other articles. This does not mean though that they cannot be challenged on that ground but the consensus seems to be that a lower level of wiki type verifiability is required if they can be verified in the maths sense, provided they do not stray too far from the notability established for the article as a whole. This particular article though did not establish notability for the article as distinct from others, and it is composed of lots and lots of little bits that have no separate claim notability. Dmcq (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a bit off-topic but I think a major reason that math articles tend not to use inline cites as much is that with math you can usually get the important facts from one or two sources and most secondary sources that cover the subject at all will usually have pretty much the same material. So for a basic article there really isn't that much need to glean different facts from a lot of different places where you need cite them line by line. But as the quality of the article improves and more information from diverse areas is added you start to see more inline cites.--RDBury (talk) 17:24, 15 October 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.