Talk:Non-classical analysis

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2022. The result of the discussion was merge.

This page was proposed for deletion by Felix QW (talk · contribs) on 9 January 2022.

General

I suggest that the items on this page be accompanied by the names of the principal authors of the disciplines in question. Paul Taylor 21:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Stone Duality

This item was added by User:Abt_12, but I don't know who s/he is. I need to correct it because it contains some errors, in particular that locally compact spaces form a topos.

ASD is original research of mine, and it therefore is not appropriate to create a Wikipedia page for it at this stage, so I have changed the link to an external one to my web page. I have changed the text about it here in the minimal way to correct it but retain the sense of the original.

It would be nice to be able to link to Wikipedia articles for locales or for locally compact spaces, but none of these is anywhere near being appropriate. The treatment of general topology, order theory and many other mathematical topics in Wikipedia is heavily biassed towards the classical (non-constructive) point of view. Paul Taylor 21:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR?

Do we have any sources for all these items being grouped under such a heading? Tkuvho (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we do actually, the distinction here clearly isn't in the non-classical logic sense, given the topics. And while there are many books on "Classical Analysis" it is not clear to me we should group these topics together because they are are not in these texts. Thenub314 (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a nice umbrella term, although the list as its stands seems to be OR. Felix QW has PRODded it, although I winder if draftification might be better until we figure out what to do with the idea. I'd be prepared to steward the article through AfC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd be happy to take back the PROD. I wanted to tidy up the page, as I couldn't figure any sensible grouping which included p-adic analysis and intuitionistic analysis but excluded non-standard analysis. So I did some research on the concept, and I only found one pertinent reference. That is a philosophy paper by Harrison on Zeno's paradoxes, in which the author explicitly states that we he calls non-classical analysis is usually called synthetic differential geometry (p. 279 there).

So I became convinced that the term isn't actually in general use, and since I couldn't figure out the inclusion criteria used here either, I thought it appropriate to PROD it. Felix QW (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess of OR (I don't suppose there is a reliable source that gives the same definition as in the lead) and false claims (all widely accepted constructive analysis can be formalised in ZFC). We're better off not having it in articlespace as it stands. I just think it isn't a terrible skeleton on which to build a defensible article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! So how do we go about this? WP:DRAFTIFY seems to suggest that we would have to go through AfD to draftify an "old" page? Felix QW (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the PROD to run out. If it's soft deleted, I can ask to draftify it, if it's deprodded, I can list it at AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De-Prodded by Jim Grisham already. Would you like to list it at AfD then? Felix QW (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll start one before long. It occurs to me that redirecting to Mathematical analysis#Other topics is simpler than draftifying. It's worthy of discussion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]