Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evaluation operator

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 21:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Evaluation operator[edit]

This is Original Research by User:Dirnstorfer alias User:Dadim alias User:212.144.150.241 (and more IP edits). See the website http://www.dadim.de which is the only place in the wild where to find this "Evaluation operator". The articles Theta calculus and Multiscale calculus have to be checked, too. --Pjacobi 23:35, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Rewrite it so it describes the far more common bar notation. Dysprosia 00:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The evalution operator exists but has a far broader scope than the article suggests. It's used to construct the Gromov-Witten invariants, for one thing. Rewrite Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 10:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.dadim.de/doc/pi/ suggests that the theory has been published in 2004 conference proceedings. However, it seems that the author is the only one using the notation. However much I'd like to use Chinese characters in maths, I have to say it is nonnotable (at least at present), so all text in the article except for the two lines in the section "Alternative notation" (describing the bar notation mentioned by Dysprosia) should be deleted. Unless somebody actually rewrites the article, I vote delete. Jitse Niesen 11:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete. An attempt to establish a private notation for a rather trivial and well-known mathematical object. @Sympleko: you are talking about something different. in the contruction of Gromov-Witten invariants, the map sending a stable map (as an element of the moduli space) to its value at one of the markings is called evaluation map, not evaluation operator (and anyway it is not what the author had in mind). Theta calculus and Multiscale calculus very much look like original research / neologisms, too. regards, High on a tree 23:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re-write. Evaluation operator deserves an article; the original notation give here probably does not. Michael Hardy 02:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curious: Is re-write a valid vote in VfD? Of course some can be rewrite an article to save it from VfD, but ordering others to do so? Also, the article can be re-written after deletion, so re-write votes shouldn count against deletion. --Pjacobi 15:24, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Delete Sholtar 05:24, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete evaluation operator should be a redirect to lambda calculus or to eval. And, by standard math usage, what this person is describing in this page is not the evaluation operator, but the binding operator lambda. So besides using non-standard notation, its also misnamed. I don't know how to rescue this page w/o a total re-write. linas 15:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also multiscale calculus should be VfD'ed. The operators he describes there are known to me as deRham operators (totally unrelated to de Rham's mainstream work on coholomology), they generate some very interesting fractals, they generate a sub- semigroup of the modular group; they generate stuff on the boundary between what's differentiable and what's not. So the suggestion to use them for calculus is ... entertaining. FWIW, they *are* multiscale, (they're fractal) which is why this person finds them handy for financial analysis. On the other hand, the smell of money is infamous for attracting kook math to the financial markets. linas 16:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.