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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

There is a long and storied history of misnamed theorems in mathematics. :) Protonk (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The SG1 may have had the same problem, but the Futurama theorem is an order of magnitude more complex than the case of SG1, which was done without even a pen and paper. It might be worth mentioning SG1 in the article, but I certainly don't think it warrants a renaming. --76.183.150.42 (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The similarities are plain, but just to underscore the differences, Keeler showed how to restore an arbitrary permutation of minds in Futurama's The Prisoner of Benda, while only (MD)(TJ) was restored in Stargate's Holiday, where (MD)(TJ) is the permutation resulting from Ma'chello switching with Daniel and Teal'c switching with Jack. 66.27.102.61 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
Oppose merge agree with Protonk - noticed at CTK and merits its own short article. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- 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)[reply]
  - Permission granted to quit browbeating people. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A proof has been published by a person with a PhD in Mathematics - it is in the show and was clearly pointed out in the show and so counts as a primary source. It is missing a peer review but that is not essential. Also the name seems to be a common name which is what is required for an article title. I think cut-the-knot. counts as a reliable secondary source but that I think is the chief weakness. If it is notable then it should not be part of the episode article as that is a use rather than encompassing this or vice versa. Dmcq (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm neutral on the merge issue, but I would like to see a discussion of this theorem kept in some form. If reliable secondary sources establish the notability of the theorem independently of the episode, then probably a separate article is warranted. Otherwise, it should be merged, but I think then that there is clearly enough material online to justify a thorough discussion of the theorem in the main article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I haven't explicitly referenced notability is because if we merge it into the episode article, then we don't have to worry about notability explicitly. There doesn't seem to be any way it could be notable independent of the episode. While cut-the-knot seems reliable enough to substantiate it as a popular name, it's clearly not of broader scientific or mathematical importance outside of the TV show. Andrevan@ 21:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a substantive argument as to why this should not be merged? Andrevan@ 22:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Noticed at CTK" is a substantive argument and Dmcq gave others above. You don't happen to agree with them, but that doesn't make them less substantive. Gandalf61 (talk)

CTK is a single source. I challenged this reasoning with the argument that we need multiple non-trivial (the APS mention being pretty trivial and more of a source for Ken Keeler) published secondary sources, which you did not reply to. Consensus building is a dialogue (or a... multilogue) and a back-and-forth between arguments. You can't just state your opinion and defend it with your original statement. Dmcq also acknowledged the issue of a single secondary source. If you don't have a substantive argument, then I'm going to go ahead and merge this. Andrevan@ 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More browbeating, I see - you really should try to break that bad habit. But you are obviously on a campaign, and I have no interest in continuing a tedious and pointless argument. There is no clear consensus here either for or against merging, but if it will give you satisfaction then go ahead and merge. But please take the time to do a proper job this time, and preserve the article contents - don't just slap a redirect over this article as you did twice before. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the cut-the-knot content before. I find that compelling enough that we can state the theorem somewhere (and should). Whether we do that in this article or in the episode article doesn't matter much to me. Once someone publishes an article in a real magazine, then we could always re-split this article with that new reference. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. But let's make sure we're being honest and thorough about sources. The American Physical Society source seems fine to me, and there's a mention at CNN. There are also stories at Engadget and Gizmodo, although they are both based on Infosphere. Mgnbar (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

members or nonmembers?

Let A be a finite set, with more than one element x, y ∉ A. [...]

Elements which are not members of A? —Tamfang (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, basically for any finite set, you can swap everyone along as long as you can introduce 2 other elements. This is simply copied from Cut-the-Knot. Andrevan@ 05:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very clearly expressed. I'll touch up the statement somewhat. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]