Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equivalence of Gaussian prime numbers

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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalence of Gaussian prime numbers

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

Unencyclopaedic OR. The article seems not to be about any particular theorem or result, though it's so badly written this is unclear. It hedges it's bets with vague statements and in three places asks the reader to prove a result themselves. No refs; the ELs are potential refs but are general ones on primes, Gaussian integers and Gaussian primes, with none precise enough to help clarify what this is meant to be about. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly written, espeically in comparison with Gaussian integer; if there were to be any useful content, you'd find it at that article. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Poorly written" is often a reason to revise rather than to delete, but in this case, you can't be sure that there's something worth keeping here because the poor writing leaves one unsure what it's about. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal or a school textbook. JIP | Talk 16:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there are too many important results in this area to fit into a section within Gaussian integer. —Tamfang (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like gobbldegook to me. And if it isn't it still looks like it. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Partly repeated from Talk:Equivalence of Gaussian prime numbers

I believe the "equivalence" refers to is contained in the statement any Gaussian integer has number of residues equal to its norm, which is a slightly obscure way of saying that if z is a Gaussian integer then the ring Z[i]/(z) of residue classes modulo z has number of elements equal to the norm |z|². This is correct. The second assertion about Fermat's Little Theorem is confusingly stated but expands to saying that if p is a prime congruent to 1 modulo 4 then p is the norm of a Gaussian prime π and z → z^p is the identity map on the ring of residues modulo π, which is the finite field of p elements; whereas if p is a prime congruent to 3 modulo 4, then p is a prime of the Gaussian integers, the ring of residues modulo p is the finite field of p² elements and z → z^p is a non-trivial automorphism of that field, which agrees with complex conjugation. This is also correct. I am assured that references exist for these facts "in inumerable books" and propose that the material, correctly attributed, be merged into Gaussian integer and that this article be deleted as the title is an unlikely search term. Spectral sequence (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- If you can make sense of this and think it's a notable and reliable (e.g. as found in such sources) result then you could add it to Gaussian integer yourself. I agree that there's no need to create a redirect from here. Both Gaussian integer and Gaussian prime link there, and those would be terms most likely used by anyone interested in the topic and such results.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poorly written and not worth re-writing as topic is already covered at Gaussian integer. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in merging (even if this subject is appropriate for inclusion in Gaussian integer) as the text is not usable for a merge and leaving a redirect would not be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2012 (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.