Talk:Unifying conjecture

Votes for Deletion

The page in question has undergone a major rewrite and was moved to Unifying theories in mathematics. Here is the old discussion about deleting the earlier version.

• Unifying conjecture - Empty theorising - nothing to save here in the big words. Charles Matthews 09:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:59, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems useful. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not useless. Eike 15:59, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sounds familiar. Elf 17:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep, and hope someone expands. Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem has been a Holy Grail of mathematics for hundreds of years - no empty theorizing here, but needs someone strong in math to tackle Denni 01:58, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC) [retracted by Denni below--Jerzy]
    • Really, I do have the background; and this says nothing on FMT. It is someone's fringe view, and splices unification (which happens) and conjectures (which are made) to support a bogus model. Adding in a prestigious allusion is throwing dust in people's eyes. Redirect to conjecture. Charles Matthews 09:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Looking at your userpage, I can only marvel. I withdraw my suggestion completely. Continue the good work, sir! Denni 21:14, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC) [At least a retraction of keep, but is this a del vote? --Jerzy]
  • Delete. I don't really understand high level math, but it certainly seems that Charles Matthews does. [ignore unsigned vote; impracticable to trace via history --Jerzy]
  • Delete: original research on the topic of unifying conjectures. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:59, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Del, tho uncomfortable w/ how much i (someone proud just to not mispronounce "Lie group") and others are relying on a single expert. --Jerzy 19:04, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • (comment) No disrespect to Charles Matthews, but there's not reason we need to rely on just one mathematician's opinion when There are plenty on this site. I'll ask AxelBoldt and a couple others for their comments. Isomorphic 21:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have a math degree. My vote is above. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reasons: 1. At best, the article consists of idiosyncratic original research. 2. Article was written by user:24 who has been hard banned for a long time. AxelBoldt 23:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whatever the pros and cons of the current content (and it's not perfect but I rather like it) it's an excellent title for an approachable article describing how real mathematics works in terms motivated, intelligent non-mathematicians can understand. We need more like it. Andrewa 11:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)