Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotype space

Stereotype space

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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

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

Stereotype algebra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stereotype group algebra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I cannot find enough literature to establish the notability of this notion. Googling with ""stereotype space" -Akbarov" yields essentially no work on this notion. There is [1] which has an entry on "stereotype space" but the source of this book seems to be the Wikipedia article topological vector space. *Mathematically*, the notion looks interesting and so it should be ok to have some discussion of this notion elsewhere in Wikipedia if the sources can be acquired, perhaps without the term "stereotype space". Another option is to move the article to nlab where the notability requirement is less stringent. -- Taku (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The reference to the article by Aristov is given in the list of references:

• Aristov, O.Yu. (2019). "Holomorphic Functions of Exponential Type on Connected Complex Lie Groups". Journal of Lie Theory. 29 (4): 1045–1070. ISSN 0949–5932. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The author uses the term "stereotype algebra" at page 1061. The other sources either use this term, or the term "stereotype space", or mention research in this area. What is the problem? Eozhik (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We need non-primary references; i.e., some significant discussion of the notion in papers or books by authors other than the person who introduced the notion. Without them, we cannot say the notion has an established place in the math literature. -- Taku (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

TakuyaMurata, what do you call "non-primary references"? As far as I understand, they are not the same as secondary sources. What is the difference? Eozhik (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

By non-primary, I mean secondary or tertiary sources; works on stereotype space other than you or textbooks. —- Taku (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

TakuyaMurata, as I told at the talk page, there are several secondary sources, including the ones that use the word "stereotype", and the ones that don't. Formally, there is even a tertiary source, a textbook that mentions this research. All these sources are listed in this article, so there is no necessity to google them. That is why your claim

I cannot find enough literature to establish the notability of this notion.

— sounds very strange. As well as your interpretation of the Wikipedia rules. Eozhik (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No, what we need is to see works on stereotype space by authors other than you. Some sources that mention the work isn’t enough; those sources need to study stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype space”. The notability in Wikipedia is more than whether the term is known; we need to see an established literate on the notion. —- Taku (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

One way to establish the notability: is there any significant result on stereotype spaces by authors other than you? Has there been a workshop on the topic? We need to see the evidence of research activity by a group of mathematicians not just math works by you. —- Taku (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

TakuyaMurata, from what you write I deduce that you don't read the sources. I foresee that the example of my co-author, Evgenii Shavgulidze, who studies the properties of the stereotype spaces together with me

• Akbarov, S.S.; Shavgulidze, E.T. (2003). "On two classes of spaces reflexive in the sense of Pontryagin". Mat. Sbornik. 194 (10): 3–26. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

— will not persuade you. On the other hand, as we understood, Oleg Aristov, who developed my results on holomorphic duality by studying the stereotype algebra ${\mathcal {O}}_{exp}(G)$ of holomorphic functions of exponential type

• Aristov, O.Yu. (2019). "Holomorphic Functions of Exponential Type on Connected Complex Lie Groups". Journal of Lie Theory. 29 (4): 1045–1070. ISSN 0949–5932. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

— is not interesting for you, because google doesn't suggest you this reading. What about Yulia Kuznetsova, who proved important continuous version of Pontryagin duality for Moore groups

• Kuznetsova, Y. (2013). "A duality for Moore groups". Journal of Operator Theory. 69 (2): 101–130. arXiv:0907.1409. Bibcode:2009arXiv0907.1409K. doi:10.7900/jot.2011mar17.1920. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

— will this example be suitable? (The term "stereotype space" is contained in the list of keywords of her article.) Or maybe people from Spain and from USA, who study this class of spaces (with another name, but with mentionings of the term "stereotype")

• Hernández, S.; Trigos-Arrieta, F.J. (2005). "Group duality with the topology of precompact convergence". J. Math. Anal. Appl. 303 (1): 274–287. doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2004.08.033. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

— ? Eozhik (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Again the problem is that those sources only mention “stereotype space” more specifically your works (but are not about stereotype spaces per se). The question on the notability is not whether people study a class of spaces like stereotype space. The question is whether “stereotype space” itself is notable on its own, *independent of your works*. —- Taku (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• TakuyaMurata, what should I think about this:

  those sources only mention “stereotype space”

  ? In these works stereotype spaces are not just mentioned, they are studied. And what about this

  The question on the notability is not whether people study a class of spaces like stereotype space. The question is whether “stereotype space” itself is notable on its own, *independent of your works*.

  ? The authors study these spaces not because of "its own", but because they play important role in solving another problem, the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups. Which exists independently on my works. Eozhik (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• And people do not only study these spaces, they suggest concrete solutions of this problem for different classes of groups. Eozhik (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them. It does not follow that one particular solution is notable on its own. Wikipedia is not a place to present a solution (unless that solution becomes notable on its own). —- Taku (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What is meant here:

The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them.

? This needs a translation. Which "problems of duality" do you mean here, TakuyaMurata? Eozhik (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I have meant problems of constructing good duality theory (for groups or others). That’s a certainly notable problem in mathematics. —- Taku (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

TakuyaMurata if that is what you want to see,

I have meant problems of constructing good duality theory (for groups or others). That’s a certainly notable problem in mathematics.

— then your reproach becomes even more vague. Because the theory of stereotype spaces suggests a solution of this problem. On the other hand it becomes unclear which nuances do you see between what you say now and what you told before:

The key point is what you said “the propblem of constructing duality theory for noncommutative groups”. That’s what those papers are concerned about. That’s why a stereotype space is not independently notable. What is notable is the problems of duality and how to solve them.

? If you say that a duality theory "for groups or others" will be notable, then why aren't the stereotype dualities for them notable? Eozhik (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

And where do you take these criteria of notability? Eozhik (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The notability is not inherited; it is possible that some problem is notable while a solution to it is not necessary notable. The sources provided only show that there is a sufficient math literature on the problem of constructing duality theories that extends the Pontryagin duality (thus the problem is notable). They do not establish the notability for stereotype spaces since, aside from your papers, the primary sources, the secondary sources do not give an in-depth treatment of stereotype spaces. Some of theori results may be interpreted in the language of stereotype spaces but that does not make the theory of stereotype spaces notable on its own. —- Taku (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

TakuyaMurata that is not enough. You should present a very sophisticated logical construction to persuade the interlocutor that the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are not notable. I would suggest you to send protests to the editorial boards, and after receiving responses to publish them here. And you should find a rule in Wikipedia, that allows you to delete this article. Eozhik (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Until now, I have not seen anyone here except the initiator of this discussion. And I want to say a few words to those who have not yet formed their opinions.

In what I saw here, the main thing for me is this statement by TakuyaMurata:

TakuyaMurata, so your point is that a Wikipedia article must describe only what is written in textbooks, right? Eozhik (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Textbooks or some major monographs... -- Taku (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I have not yet found confirmation of this thesis. The links that TakuyaMurata gave to me don't contain it. I will listen with interest to the (promised) opinions of people about this, but no matter what I hear, I want to notice that what is happening is not called honesty:

1. If this important rule is really accepted in Wikipedia, it should be clearly spelled out in the local laws so that situations are not provoked when a person, not knowing about anything like this, spends time writing an article, editing it, searching for sources and the rest, and suddenly discovers that all his work has been thrown into the bin. This is a very important rule, fundamental to such resources, and if it really works here, then the situation when somebody refers to it, despite the fact that it is not written anywhere, is called a dishonesty.

2. On the contrary, if this rule is not accepted on Wikipedia (which is logical to think when it is not visible anywhere), then a reference to it looks like a cheating.

Ladies and gentlemen, you should deal with your laws, because this situation is a disorder. Eozhik (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep-the concept is cited in this paper:[2]. I think the concern was that the author of the papers was a crackpot or crank. If this concern was true, you wouldn't see a paper of his being cited by others in reputable literature.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That's where we came now. Gentlemen, if this is what was meant, then the investigation procedure in such cases needs a formalization. Now it looks awfully. My habilitation thesis was devoted to this topic. It was at the Moscow State University, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics. The reviewers were from the Moscow State University, from the Steklov Institute of Mathematics and from the University of Caen Normandy. Eozhik (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that’s not the nomination reason; I am not saying what he does isn’t a valid mathematics research. But that’s not enough to satisfy the notability requirement. To quote from Wikipedia:Notability “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” All we have is the significant works on the stereotype spaces by User:Eozhik himself. We need works by other than him on stereotype spaces with the explicit term “stereotype spaces“ (for example, the abstract of the paper by Aristov uses the term “locally convex algebra” and no “stereotype” in the abstract). As far as we understand, there is no such works. —- Taku (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)