Talk:Futurama theorem

The article doesn't seem to actually state the theorem that was proven, it only offers a proof of whatever the theorem is. 129.108.235.70 (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you provide a valid proof for a theorem, wouldn't you then consider it proven? -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that this was already done in the 1999 episode of Stargate SG1 called Holiday (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0709104/plotsummary) years before this Futurama episode was even written, shouldn't this be called the Stargate theorem? In this episode the team first met Ma'chello as an old man and Daniel and Ma'chello swapped minds using a machine that looked like a piece of gym equipment (which has the same exact property of not being able to swap back directly with the person you originally transferred to) 75.51.147.74 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is a long and storied history of misnamed theorems in mathematics. :) Protonk (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a theorem

As The Prisoner of Benda explains, this is not a theorem, nor does it merit its own article for OR/RS reasons. Andrevan@ 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Then you should take it to AfD for a proper deletion/redirect discussion. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I think a good article on this subject would be a short breakout of that section on the episode, not a long digression, but that is a decision for normal editing. I don't think a redirect is the best outcome. Protonk (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources per WP:RS for even the term "Futurama theorem." Therefore it is proper to WP:MERGE it with the The Prisoner of Benda article and discuss the idea of breaking it out rather than even involve AFD. Andrevan@ 22:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, please consider Talk:The Prisoner of Benda where this issue was discussed previously. Andrevan@ 22:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose this article should be merged immediately since no reliable sources for its existence exist. It is simply a single frame footnote from a Futurama episode, The Prisoner of Benda, and any appropriate, sourced coverage of the theorem reference to that particular joke can be covered in the content that exists there. Andrevan@ 22:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• eh, I think a small article on the topic is fine. What happened to the APS source mentioned on the talk page for prisoner of benda? Also why is the article semi-protected? Protonk (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately "eh, I think it's fine" is not a valid response to a request for reliable sources. The APS source is indeed in the Prisoner of Benda article, but this source does not use the phrase "Futurama theorem." The quote in the article is In an APS News exclusive, Cohen reveals for the first time that in the 10th episode of the upcoming season, tentatively entitled “The Prisoner of Benda,” a theorem based on group theory was specifically written (and proven!) by staffer/PhD mathematician Ken Keeler to explain a plot twist. Aside from the question of accuracy of this statement, this is a trivial mention and not sufficient to support the existence of an independent article. The basis is multiple, non-trivial published works. The article is semi-protected because a number of anonymous editors were adding unreferenced content since this article is currently on Reddit. Andrevan@ 02:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm just answering the merge proposal with a statement of preference about the disposition of the article. I didn't expect the spanish inquisition. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
      • No one ever does. But seriously, this article should be merged; there's not enough to say at Futurama theorem that doesn't duplicate what's said at The Prisoner of Benda. We should keep the external links, to cut-the-knot.org for example. That's where readers should go to find original expository material anyway. Melchoir (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm glad someone got the gag. I was tempted to wikilink it in case I might be misconstrued as a marginally bigger jerk than I actually am. Protonk (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merge agree with Protonk - noticed at CTK and merits its own short article. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• • This isn't a vote or an AFD, you don't need to "oppose," and simple "me too, agree with X" comments are not productive. On what basis does it merit an article? You agree with Protonk but Protonk has not yet substantiated his argument with anything pertaining to the policies of verifiability, reliability, or the burden of evidence. As you yourself point out here, there isn't even a reliable source for the name "Futurama theorem." Andrevan@ 08:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Permission granted to quit browbeating people. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In case it's not clear (it wasn't to me at first), reliable sources are needed here not just to substantiate the content of the article, but also to determine that the topic is notable in the first place. A Google search for "Futurama theorem" turns up many hits from various online publications. Do they make it notable? Still, the content is small enough that it would be better merged with The Prisoner of Benda, I think. Mgnbar (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)