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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is a notable topic. Consensus also indicates there are considerable OR issues to address. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Pseudomathematics

Pseudomathematics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This uncited article is, so far as it goes, largely a piece of original research. The term "pseudomathematics" rarely crops up, and when it does it's used as a short hand way of saying that conventional mathematical techniques have been misused or misapplied. An example would be the backtest overfitting of financial data modelling, where the prefix "pseudo" has the same general meaning as it does in "pseudo-democracy". In other words, there is no field of endeavour called "pseudomathematics". Eric Corbett 01:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  samee   converse  02:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete This appears to be a work entirely of OR, and not a subject that actually exists. When a phrase like psuedoscience is used, it implies a unscientific theory being presented as one, a deception. Something like that just doesn't happen in mathematics, and nobody is out there professing the "truth" of 2+2 being 5. Even the given example is simply a misconception, and nothing more. Pinguinn  🐧 09:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yes, it is a thing — that is, the term is used in the wild to describe numerology, the meaningless formulae of creationists, people who write to math professors claiming they've proved that pi is exactly 22/7, etc. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  I think that for your argument to have any credibility the material you cite ought to use the term, which it ought to be possible to find a definition for somewhere. In the first example you cite the word pseudomathematics only appears in the title. The body of the article makes it perfectly clear that what is being described is a misinterpretation of probability theory, not an alternative mathematics. I haven't checked your other citations, but would suspect that the same argument applies to them. Eric Corbett 16:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  ... and numerology is a pseudoscience, not pseudomathematics, based as it is on a belief in the occult properties of numbers. Eric Corbett 16:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

First, using the word in a title is an example of using the word. Second, your claim about the other references I provided is incorrect. Third, your exclusion of numerology from the category of pseudomathematics is both arbitrary and inconsistent with the way the term "pseudomathematics" is used in practice (e.g., [8] [9] [10] [11]). XOR'easter ( talk) 16:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep as the above references show, this is an accepted term with an accepted definition. The article needs references, yes, but not deletion. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 17:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete as nominator. Eric Corbett 19:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Second delete !vote struck. As nominator, your nomination already counts as a delete recommendation. See, for example, Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Miscellaneous_advice. -- Mark viking ( talk) 20:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Pseudomathematics has been noted by the refs provided above by XOR'easter and by others as being the realm of countless cranks and charlatans over the ages. In the 1890's the Indiana legislature almost passed a bill enshrining in law a pseudomathematical way of squaring the circle. "Creation scientists" use probability pseudomathematically to try and disprove evolution. Edison ( talk) 22:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment: both the article and the deletion rationale seem poor. An alternative possible title might be mathematical crankery. (The article crank (person) includes in its see-also list the links pseudophysics, pseudoscholarship, and pseudoscience.) -- JBL ( talk) 01:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is not a dictionary. This article, such as it is, seems mainly to be a platform for expressing points of view. I dont disagree with those views, but also dont see that we need an article for collection of criticisms. 01:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kablammo ( talk • contribs)
• Keep. Whether a person accepts this topic as existing on its own, depends on the level of abstraction this person is willing to go to. Since this is derived from "mathematics", and deals, amongst others, with questions requiring high levels of e.g. algebraic abstraction, I argue for keeping this article, and not following the non-encompassing view of comparing it with arbitrary "pseudos". I do not dispute room for improvement. Purgy ( talk) 07:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There is certainly a topic here, but it might be more aptly titled "mathematical crankery" (e.g., [12]. Crank mathematics is quite old, and can be found explicitly referenced in a paper by G.H. Hardy [13]. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Mathematical cranks are mentioned in this article. Mathematical Cranks exists, but bounces to Underwood Dudley's article. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 13:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I'd be fine with changing the title. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep if there is a problem with an article it should be rewritten as opposed to deleted. ApolloCarmb ( talk) 20:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete: it is not clear from the article what the intended topic is. I can claim that 1 + 1 = 10 and I'm not wrong, just using binary; similarly, if I claim that it is possible to construct a square with the same area as a given circle, I am not violating the theorems around squaring the circle but instead am going beyond Euclidean geometry or finite algorithms. This is very different from actually doing maths wrong, such as accepting the definition of pi (geometrically or as a power series) and then declaring that it equals 25/8. And this is also very different from misapplication of mathematics—if I claim that the weak law of large numbers disproves Pascal's Wager then I'm misunderstanding mathematical theory or choosing a poor model of the situation, but the end result is not exactly an incorrect piece of maths.
  This distinction is important because while both topics could be notable as their own articles (or perhaps better, as lists), it is not a good idea to conflate them. The article as it stands does not strike me as useful or correct—it makes the astounding claim that people attempting to trisect an angle are pseudomathematicians! (I hate to imagine what the author would think about proof by contradiction)—and so I'm tempted to argue for TNT'ing it, as it is at best not clearly defined in scope and at worst spreading outright misinformation. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 20:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Note that it says angle trisecting using only compass and straightedge is pseudomathematics - as, indeed, it is. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 20:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Again, "pseudomathematics" is not a (if you'll excuse the pun) well-defined term, and you are being disingenuous in your summary; the article implies that even trying to trisect an angle is in some way pseudomathematical: it says "One common type of approach is attempting to solve classical problems in terms that have been proven mathematically impossible" under a section clearly marked "Types of pseudomathematics". In what way is attempting a problem in the wrong way "pseudomathematics"? I suppose I'm engaging in pseudomathematics every time I am set a "find a proof or counterexample" question for homework and have the gall to look for a proof before discovering that there exists a counterexample. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 21:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You have a point: We shouldn't say "attempting to solve" these famously proven-impossible problems, but rather "claiming to have solved" - that's when it gets into pseudomathematics and crankery. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 20:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep As demonstrated by XOR'easter above, the term exists and is notable. Paul August ☎ 00:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This appears to be our main article on mathematical crankery, frequent mistakes, and the like, a notable topic (the subject of whole books, e.g. Dudley's Mathematical Cranks, Barbeau's Mathematical Fallacies, Flaws, and Flimflam and More Fallacies, Flaws & Flimflam, or de Morgan's A Budget of Paradoxes). Probably a better name can be found for it, but that is not a good reason for deletion. For the same reason the nominator's argument that "to have any credibility the material you cite ought to use the term" itself lacks credibility — per WP:NOTDICT, our articles are about notable topics, not about English words, so it is the topic, not the word, that needs sources. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It is certainly not a great article but the topic is legitimate and, particularly given the work done since the deletion nomination, the article is not a TNT case. The article is not egregiously bad and can be further improved using the current base. The nomination errs in seeming to suggest that Pseudomathematics is only a real phenomenon if the practitioners of it self-identify what they do as Pseudomathematics. If generally accepted, that type of argument would doom a great many other valid articles, most obviously Pseudoscience as nobody self-identifies as a pseudoscientist. Similarly, I never saw a conspiracy theory admit itself as such and (as we are endlessly reminded on some Talk pages that shall remain nameless) the Nazis never called themselves "Nazis". The nomination is correct in saying that the term is not very widely used but the sources show that it is widely enough used to support a short article. While the subject is clearly valid, I have no objection to a move and redirect if a better title can be found. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per other mathematical editors, the topic does exist even if the article could be better written. I was initially a little confused about Martin Gardner's contributions; mostly, however, his "fads and fallacies" articles on fringe science avoided mathematics (his mathematical interests were broad—he was the acknowledged expert on recreational mathematics, à la Conway, Guy, et al). Mathsci ( talk) 06:34, 16 April 2018 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.