Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. — xaosflux Talk 12:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory

[edit]
Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old draft from February 2014. Algebraic K-theory already exists and I think these theorem exist as separate articles so I don't see the need for a "basic theorems" separate page. I don't think other portions of the math articles have separate "basic theorems"/semi how-to pages. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: ("old" is irrelevant). We do have an article like fundamental theorem of algebra. So, I think it makes sense to have a separate article. -- Taku (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is on a fundamental theorem not an article that suggests without sourcing I may add what are the fundamental theorems of algebra. There is a difference. Otherwise this article will just be a listing of whatever sources call the "basic" theorems of algebraic K-theory and I see no reason why they are limited ot the theorems you listed. Will there be an "advance theorems of algebraic K-theory" article next? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see the reason for the confusion. No, "basic" here is not used in a generic term but has specific technical meaning just like "fundamental" in the "fundamental theorem of algebra" is not a generic term. There are specific theorems called "basic theorems" and the article is about them. On the other hand, I am not aware of the theorems called "advanced theorems". -- Taku (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that. The point is, every mathematical construct requires set axioms and basic theorems to exist. The only article that makes sense is an article about basic theorems without going into details about each theorem as the theorems should be the subject not the point of this. This is not a how-to guide about the math. There should be a separate article about the additivity theorem if it's actually important enough on its own (in this case, the application isn't) or else this is literally just a section that belongs in the main algebraic K-theory article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid you don't understand the situation. That article is not nor need to be a how-to article. Those theorems are put together into a single article since this seems to be the case in literature. People discuss this set of "basic theorems"; so it is probably better to put them into one article instead of having separate articles for each theorem. If you need more references, I can go googling for you. Is that what you need, more assurance of notability? Let me repeat myself. There does exists a specific set of "basic theorems" that is agreed in the field, just like the "fundamental theorem of algebra" refers to a specific theorem. I didn't choose those theorems and call them "basic theorems", that's pure original research. There exist theorems named "basic theorems" (it's not my naming), exactly the same way there is a theorem called the fundamental theorem of algebra. Is this really that difficult for you to understand this? Maybe the term "basic" is not good one but that's not up for us to change it. We need to use the standard name. -- Taku (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand. There are no other separate articles on basic theorems of anything. There is no general Basic theorems and others are at Cofibration or Universal algebra or other places but it's never a separate article. That's why it either is duplicative of the main article or it's irrelevant but either way, it's a draft for something that will likely be merged into mainspace somewhere else anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, you are still not getting a very simple point: there are certain theorems called "basic theorems" of algebraic K-theory. (Not my naming; Google it.) It does make sense to mention them in the main article algebraic K-theory. That doesn't mean we can't have a separate article about those particular theorems (the article are about specific theorems not general facts, don't let word "basic" confuse you). Your argument amounts to we need to merge fundamental theorem of algebra into algebra, that's absurd. -- Taku (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ricky81682, if this has potential to be merged into a mainspace article, isn't that an argument to retain it rather than delete it? If you delete the content, it will be quite difficult (that's an euphemism for impossible) to merge it elsewhere. Diego (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not look like proper drafting of a new topic to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amm, how so? The basic theorems do exist (and are notable). What is wrong with having an article about them? I know it's "plular" but I don't think that's problematic. -- Taku (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are selectively Wikipedia:Content forking from Algebraic K-theory, and that you shouldn't be doing that. If "Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory" deserves specific coverage, there need to first be a section so titled at Algebraic K-theory. When size becomes an issue, look to Wikipedia:Splitting. The main point required is that your creation is done on the table, openly, with editors interested in Algebraic K-theory. As there is a parent mainspace article, I don't think that this drafts should be drafted in draftspace where others may begin to assist in creating a new independent article, which would be an unacceptable content fork. Possibly, you could keep these "notes" in your userspace, but I think this draft should be deleted from DraftSpace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand "you think" but I'm telling that's based on misunderstanding (as I already explained above); the nomination itself is based on the misunderstanding. The key point to notice is that "basic" here is not used in a generic sense but is a part of the name of the theorems. I did not select the theorems and call them basic; that would be OR. When there is a named theorem (so is notable), we have an article about it. It makes sense to have an article on "basic theorems" in exactly the same way it makes sense to have an article on fundamental theorem of algebra; not the article is not content fork. I completely agree we don't want a personal note or how-to page in the draft namespace. The draft is neither. -- Taku (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By what measure do you assert that this topic is notable? You appear to do so on the basis that it is "a named theorem", which firstly I think is odd, and secondly it doesn't speak to whether theorems should be covered together in one page, or in separate pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think "named theorem" is a good indicator for notability (if not automatic one). The draft gives a few references and for me that settles the question of the notability. Obviously those theorems should be mentioned in the main article but it still makes sense to have a separate article. Is the problem that it is a set of theorems as opposed to a single one? It seems to me that, in literature, those theorems are discussed as a set (namely as basic theorems) instead of separate pieces. I personally think "fundamental theorems" would be a better name but apparently "basic theorems" is more common. -- Taku (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are basic theorems in the subject of algebraic K-theory, but there is no collection of theorems called the "basic theorems of algebraic K-theory". Taku, I know you claim otherwise, but I challenge you to find a reference that calls any set of theorems by that name. Perhaps the closest thing to the draft's title is Bass's Fundamental Theorem of Algebraic K-Theory, but that theorem isn't mentioned in the draft. Moreover, the draft is in such poor shape that there is hardly any material worth saving. Ozob (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell from Googling, the commonest name for those theorems is "basic theorems". See for example [1], [2], [3], [4]. But I don't think the particular name of the draft is an issue here. We can alway move the page to a new name if the consensus is that there is a more common name. "Fundamental Theorem" is also commonly used, but that one seems to refer to a more specific theorem; namely, for a regular Noetherian ring R, . Thus, "basic theorems" is less ambiguous and that's, I think, probably why people use "basic" instead of "fundamental". In any case, it is not important for us to figure why certain theorems are called in a certain way.
    • I agree the draft is virtually content-less but that's not an argument for the deletion. Here, the question we must ask is whether the theorems are notable enough to be given a coverage in a separate page, in addition to the coverage in the main article. I would say, yes; for example, a discussion on the proofs of some of the theorems are too much details in the main article. Besides, I have not seen any strong counterargument yet, except an argument based on the "confusion" about the purpose of the draft namespace. -- Taku (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sure that I don't need to understand the topic to understand that this drafting, alone in a dark room in DraftSpace, is undesirable. The topic, if it is a genuine topic, sits within Algebraic K-theory. Get it mentioned there (it is not really), build it into a section, and if you cannot it is because consensus does not support this as a a valid topic. Delete it from DraftSpace, allow userfication, but serious content building on this topic should be done directly in existing mainspace articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The references you gave prove my point. There is no set of theorems called "the basic theorems of algebraic K-theory". Search for "basic" in those articles and look. Some of them don't talk about "basic theorems" at all. The others, when they do, are using "basic" as a qualifier to denote that they are talking about foundational results instead of, say, applications. Nobody—anywhere—says, "These are the basic theorems of algebraic K-theory."
    In addition, SmokeyJoe is right that there is no reason to develop these as a separate article. I think it's fine for Wikipedia to have this content, but it fits well at the present algebraic K-theory article. I don't understand why you're so attached to the name "basic theorems of algebraic K-theory". Ozob (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't have a strong attachment to the name; I even don't have a strong attachment to the draft page. If I knew the draft would prove to be so controversial, I probably wouldn't have started it. It's called "basic theorems" since I needed a name for the draft page and it seems that was the most common name. But I still think there does exist some concrete set of theorems in algebraic K-theory that are fundamental to the subject; the set somehow changes depending on the authors, of course, but there is some rough consensus of which one is among the basic theorems; for example, additivity theorem. The assertion that this draft is OR is plainly wrong (stemming from ignorance). Obviously, those theorems can be discussed in the main article. At the present state, the draft page might need not exist as a separate article but if we start adding the discussion of the proofs and other technicality related to the constructions, then I think the resulting details are too much for the main article. I still fail to see why such content development need to be forbidden (and that's the point of the contention.) -- Taku (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the set changes depending on the authors suggests that the draft is not about a specific set of theorems that are well-known as the "basic theorems of algebraic K-theory". If you could find a reference that called a specific set of theorems the "basic theorems of algebraic K-theory", then you could say in the article, "According to reference [XYZ], the basic theorems of algebraic K-theory are ...". But I don't think there is even a reference that does that. And if references cannot be found, then the article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Ozob (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of repeating myself - this is not an article, and we are not at AfD. Meeting article's guidelines would be important if we were talking about moving the thing to main space right now, in its current state. Rather, we're deciding if there's any facts in it that should be WP:PRESERVEd, or if everything in it need to be deleted. Per the recent community consensus about drafts, it's enough that the content shows some potential for being useful in some way for being used in the encyclopaedia in which case there's no deadline for giving it time to develop into something better. As several editors have pointed out, there are some chunks that describe existing theorems and could be used. Diego (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC),[reply]
    The draft has no content. It has some sentence fragments and a theorem statement copied directly from a source. Ozob (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also a handful of references regarding the fundamentals and basis of K-theory, which would be lost if this draft is fully deleted, and could allow an editor in the future to write a proper introduction to the topic. Diego (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Please also see my post below.) I don't think just because there is some variations, the topic itself becomes non-notable. The topic of the article is not to determine exact the set, but about the theorems themselves; that is, the article is not meant to set forth the argument X, Y, Z should be considered the basic theorems but merely about the theorems themselves. There is some dispute a certain island is part of Japan or not; the existence of the dispute doesn't make Japan makes non-existent. -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: drafts do not need to satisfy the WP:GNG nor any other article-space content guideline, as they are not articles, so it doesn't matter that their contents don't match a single notable topic, it's enough that they're verifiable and aren't against anything in WP:NOT. If the content of this draft grows and develops, we can later decide how to use it at different parts of mains pace, be it as a single article, split as sections of already existing ones, or completely refocused into a different direction. Per WP:IMPERFECT, we don't need to decide now how to best present this content right now, we can wait and see where it goes. Diego (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps rename to Fundamental theorems of algebraic K-theory. I was easily able to find two more references talking about fundamental theorems in algebraic K-theory and added both refs to the article. While I agree with Ozob that there doesn't seem to be a canonical set of fundamental theorems for this field, three refs discussing this topic shows that there is some sense of basic theorems among multiple authors. For me, this is enough verifiability to keep the draft article and let Taku try to develop it further. --Mark viking (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a specific theorem called the Fundamental theorem of algebraic K-theory. Ozob (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this should be named as one of those "Introduction to" articles, like those we have about relativity and evolution. Diego (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Algebraic K-theory is fairly extensive and quite properly explains the various applications and conjectures from it. The Fundamental theorem of algebraic K-theory article also separately describes the single agreed-upon fundamental theorem within algebraic K-theory. Cobbling together various sources that either describe their own set of "basic" or what someone considers "fundamental" theorems to create not even a how-to but basically a list of actual normal theorems and how they apply to this subject area is not how articles are made. Again, this is how mathematics works: I could create a algebraic structure that fails these criteria or create one that applies in a certain manner and then create subsequent elaborate definitions of what is basic or fundamental to that structure but that doesn't mean that this grouping of theorems is actually anything more than a fringe theory to call it as such. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still this basic fundamental misunderstanding of what the article is about: the article is not set to develop some new theory related to algebraic K-theory. The article is about the theorems that are already established; there is absolutely zero originality or newness. You might claim that a choice of the theorems is something personal. But, as I said repeatedly, the choice is taken from the references. Even if there is some individual variations, there does seem to be this roughly set of the basic theorems (that includes the additivity theorem, etc.) As the references I gave show, people do refer to them as the basic theorems or some other names; this makes the topic notable. On the other hand, a slight variation in the set is not enough not to have an article on the topic at all. For example, to some extent, the definition of algebraic K-theory depends on particular constructions. Depending on you use Q-construction or S-construction, you get a different theory that differs in some technical ways. That doesn't mean we can't have an article on the topic. The only question that matters is notability: are those theorems notable or not. The negative answer has not been given so far. I don't argue "basic theorems" is the only title option; some other titles might work; but again, that's not an argument for the deletion. -- Taku (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as Diego explained above, drafts don't even need to meet GNG, and they're not expected to correspond 1-to-1 with articles. Lacking a concrete objection I default to keeping the draft. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:55, 6 August 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Basic_theorems_of_algebraic_K-theory&oldid=1074085995"