Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental equation
Fundamental equation was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 to delete the article.
Not standard usage, as it is not a meaningful concept. When is an equation "fundamental" and when is it not? -- CYD
- Delete. Neologism, at least in this sense. — Gwalla | Talk 03:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. --Yath 04:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsensical. -- Creidieki 07:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism that was reverted when inserted into Differential equation. SWAdair | Talk 07:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism. I'm sure I've never heard that term used in that way. Nevertheless... there are a number of selected theorems that are generally known as the "Fundamental theorem of..." The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is that every positive integer has a unique prime decomposition. The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra is that every polynomial has at least one complex root. I've always wondered who decides "when is a theorem 'fundamental' and when is it not?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The word "fundamental" in the context you describe has a very different (and more or less well-defined) meaning. In mathematics, a "fundamental theorem" is a theorem, based on a set of axioms, from which all the other more complicated results follow. There is no similar thing in physics, because physics isn't concerned with axioms. -- CYD
- That's not particularly true; many fields of physics, such as Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum mechanics, have axiomatic formulations, at least for parts of them. You don't generally see these axioms until around graduate level. It might be more accurate to say that physics has been less successful at axiomizing itself than mathematics has; we would love to have sets of axioms from which all the more complicated results follow, we just don't yet. -- Creidieki 17:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Mathematical physicists would love it, anyway. -- CYD
- That's not particularly true; many fields of physics, such as Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum mechanics, have axiomatic formulations, at least for parts of them. You don't generally see these axioms until around graduate level. It might be more accurate to say that physics has been less successful at axiomizing itself than mathematics has; we would love to have sets of axioms from which all the more complicated results follow, we just don't yet. -- Creidieki 17:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The word "fundamental" in the context you describe has a very different (and more or less well-defined) meaning. In mathematics, a "fundamental theorem" is a theorem, based on a set of axioms, from which all the other more complicated results follow. There is no similar thing in physics, because physics isn't concerned with axioms. -- CYD
- Delete. Not used this way in physics. -- Decumanus 19:00, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism that gets off to a poor start with a bad and useless definition. ---Rednblu 21:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete- meaningless & unused neologism -FZ 17:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.