This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 02:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoax. Google has NO hits. GinaDana 21:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, like the author said it's a very recent field.
• delete hoax. Brighterorange 21:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was recently developed at Columbia. See http://www.math.columbia.edu/~ums/ .
• Sounds like a joke by a maths undergrad to me. Delete. --IByte 21:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete patent nonsense. Gazpacho 21:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Undergraduates. Should be wheeled out & shot. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Is that a personal belief that you are willing to enforce, or was it supposed to be in some way funny?
    • Foliate their holomorphic sections into a sheaf of germs, that's what I say.
• Delete that was funny Psy Guy 21:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Article is backed up by two universities (Columbia: http://math.columbia.edu/~ums, UW: http://www.math.washington.edu/~arthur) Keep. Undergraduates do research too (see Archive page under UMS)
  • Personal web pages that happen to be hosted by a university domain does not equal "backed up by two universities." (Yes, yes, I know the disk drives on which the web pages reside are probably "backed up" by the University IT department, let's not go there...) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • UMS is the website of the Undergraduate Math Society, a seminar for undergraduates to present their research, and is acknowledged on the seminars page of Columbia University's Mathematics Department: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~lrb/weeklyseminars.html (linked from the main page http://math.columbia.edu/ as Weekly Seminars)
• Patent nonsense, <eta>belongs to BJAODN.</eta> Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete patent nonsense. DV8 2XL 00:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Joke nonsense. --Fastfission 00:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as probable hoax or joke, certainly as original research, unless good verifiable references are provided prior to expiration of VfD period. If the theory hasn't even been published we can't have an article about it, even if it were true. The following material, from http://www.math.washington.edu/~arthur , tends to reinforce the impression that it's a joke: Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using Nakapoopoo's lemma, it is clear that this value must be positive, unless it's negative or zero. Next consider primes in an arithmetic sequence and correlate them with the lattice polygons and their associated toric varieties. You may be saying, how does this relate to algebraic potato? Well, the mirror partner to the given toric variety is exactly the potato in question. The proof is long and complex but very enlightening.

As the advertisements used to say, "The answer lies in the seaweed, son." Grutness...wha? 01:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pursuing due diligence, I've made email queries to jm@math.columbia.edu and mathmail@math.washington.edu, the math departments at Columbia and University of Washington, asking whether there is any such theory as "algebraic potato." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweet! Can you post a copy of your email and the response you receive please!
    • Comment What a wonderful idea! <g> If this is exposed as a fraud, perhaps they'll be forced to take those student pages down. GinaDana 03:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This is very serious fraud. Dpbsmith, thank you for writing an email to Morgan. You are very important! And I believe - as most of us - that the undergraduate evil-doers should be severely punished. Taking down the pages is not enough. Let's waste more time from Columbia professors and make sure they identify these underlings and turn them in, to the Wikicourt, where these overpriviledged ivy-leaguers will have to explain their malignant summer activities. Let's hope they get sentenced to three months of Wiki article deleting. We will show 'em. We are important! Esprungo 00:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Shrug) When I don't know about something, I ask. My experience is that most professors are pretty amiable and willing to help out. I was always willing to "waste" professors' time by asking questions when I was in college, and I'm willing to do it now. Professor Morgan lists himself as the contact for the department, and I think it's perfectly appropriate to contact people who have indicated a willingness to be contacted.

I don't think the students should be "forced to take those student pages down," since those pages don't make any claim of being endorsed by the institutions hosting the pages.

I don't think the University of Washington, while a fine institution (with a very nice marine laboratory in the San Juan Islands) is, in the strictest and most literal sense, a member of the Ivy League.

I fancy the correct spelling of "overpriviledged" has no "'d."'

But I really don't care about those last three points. But I do care about Wikipedia containing accurate information. I happen to think that is important. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• As "Google hits" seem to be the standard measuring tool used here, a search for "priviledge" turns out around 224,000 results.

• The same Google search finds Did you mean: privilege --IByte 02:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• lol at shrugging people. lol at people who want to pick a fight. (Check out how the fight starts on the Nanking Massacre discussion page). But Dpbsmith's pics are nice! Esprungo 02:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, I'm sure Morgan chuckled, no undergrads were harmed in the making of the email. -eitan

bhargav said morgan likes us undergrads more than the grad students :P wanna audit his first geometry class? Esprungo

---

My email, trimmed: Dpbsmith (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An article was recently contributed to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, entitled "Algebraic potato." Most of us think the article is patently a joke or hoax. Wikipedia gets these all the time and doesn't regard them as a serious matter. But, as a matter of due diligence I'd appreciate it if you would comment as to whether or not there is any such theory as "algebraic potato."

The entire content of the article submitted to Wikipedia is: [text...]

In the discussion, an (anonymous) discussant, arguing against deleting the article, wrote: "Article is backed up by two universities Columbia: http://math.columbia.edu/~ums , UW: http://www.math.washington.edu/~arthur ). The second of the two links reads: [Nakapoopoo's lemma, etc....]

I have received this reply from John Morgan <jm@math.columbia.edu>, the listed contact for the Columbia math department, shown as a professor on their roster. Time-stamped 2005/09/01 Thu AM 08:42:02 CDT:

"This is complete nonsense, probably a joke. The second link strings together true mathematical concepts but not in any coherent fashion." --John Morgan

---

• Delete Total nonsense and hoax.
• I can't believe you all think this is a hoax. The eyes (i's) of the potato, when planted on the complex plain, grow monotonically in a nondecreasing arithmetic series into complex carbohydrates, while the saddle-shaped crisps approximate a Riemann Sour Cream Manifold (Dr. Pringle, personal communication) that is both non-Euclidian and tasty. Betcha can't delete just one! --DavidConrad 04:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL @ DavidConrad
• BJAODN. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice joke. Delete the page, BJAODN, and possibly candidate authors for a P(otato)h.D. --Raistlin 17:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (And User:DavidConrad needs to learn how to spell Euclidean.) Michael Hardy 01:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Not worthy of BJAODN, maybe it's funny to mathematicians and math students, but unlikely to general readership. MCB 02:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "here we just want stupid people to read"

• BJAODN
• Delete The witty comments above are better reading than the article in question. Alf 10:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.