Talk:James A. D. W. Anderson: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:: I also agree. Also candidate for deletion? [[User:Lee-Jon|Lee-Jon]] 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
:: I also agree. Also candidate for deletion? [[User:Lee-Jon|Lee-Jon]] 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
::: Candidate for deletion? A nope, It is a current event, and it is someone who stirred up some commotion, so in that regard I do think it should have it's place in wikipedia. Soyweiser |
Revision as of 00:10, 8 December 2006
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James A. D. W. Anderson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Article Discussion
- The two articles PerspexMachineIX.pdf and PerspexMachineVIII.pdf look like pseudo-science to me (only references to their own papers, and one to wikipedia) --Soyweiser 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Publications Discussion
- And what the Flying F is Transreal analysis in mathematics, as far as I can see the author of the new NaN made that up to. Don't really consider that to be proper academic research now is it? --Soyweiser 13:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- He came up with a name for his idea, I don't see a problem with that. It separates it from stuff that already exists. It uses NaN only in passing, it has nothing to do with it directly, take a look at the paper. It notes the existance of proofs explaining 0^0 -> 0/0 = DNE. fintler 13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well Sadly I don't have the time right now to read another paper. So I'll believe you about the 0^0 -> 0/0 = DNE part. (There where some comments on the /. page about the transreal analysis and the paper, some strange things that could indicate work that still has to be done on the papers.) But the problem was already solved (at least partially then) and it doesn't justify all the media attention. --Soyweiser 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Mathematician?
Giving Anderson the title of mathematician in my opinion is inaccurate given that his academic background is in Computer Science and his "mathematical" publications are not from any established mathematical journal. 65.246.47.233 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree on that one. --Soyweiser 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I also agree. Also candidate for deletion? Lee-Jon 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Candidate for deletion? A nope, It is a current event, and it is someone who stirred up some commotion, so in that regard I do think it should have it's place in wikipedia. Soyweiser