Talk:quantum indeterminacy
Latest comment: 8 years ago by BD2412 in topic quantum indeterminacy
Deletion discussion
[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Definition stolen from Wikipedia; this is poorly defined and not necessarily dictionary material. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Yurivict (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Without delving into the specifics of this case, I see nothing wrong with "stealing" a definition from Wikipedia. Our definition of terms should be consistent with the description of the meaning of those terms on Wikipedia. bd2412 T 13:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Seconded bd2412. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. A poor definition should be fixed, although I admit there is no easy definition in sight. Meanwhile, because it looks SOP, but it's not, it should be kept. There is a profound qualitative difference between the kinds of indeterminacy one is used to in classical thinking and the kinds one deals with in quantum mechanics. Treating QI as SOP is what beginners and outsiders do, and ruins their ability to understand QM. So much so that learning to treat it as not-SOP is the pons asinorum of beginning QM. See [1] or [2]. SOP terms do not get essays. Choor monster (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: not a sum of parts (SOP). Redundancy to Wikipedia is alone never a good reason for deletion, or else we would be deleting a huge number of technical non-SOP terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I've rewritten the definition, and added a short Usage note. Choor monster (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)