Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-life computation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -lethe talk + 16:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-life computation

[edit]

POV fork of Half-life article. Rmhermen 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See in Talk:Half-life the extensive discussion ongoing since June 12. Jclerman 11:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page discussion referred to above is quite convoluted. The article under discussion here was created by User:Pce3@ij.net when his/her attempts to include the computations in the half life article were rebuffed. That article contains the rather standard and quite simple math equations for exponential decay, however User:Pce3@ij.net apparently objected to the use of a couple of the standard symbols. The content of the page under consideration here contains:
A simplified how to calculation which doesn't use the rate constant symbol. The use of non-standard lg for log is itself confusing (this was pointed out to the user). Objection: Wikipedia is not a how to.
The inclusion of unexplained or identified (language) computer code for the calculation. Meaningless nonsense - which adds nothing to understanding the concept. If programming is being taught then the students should develope the code from the equations.
The long table was apparently produced by the author using Excel to make a point and is in itself rather absurdly meaningless.
Does that help to clarify? Vsmith 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Though I'll with-hold my vote for the time being, I agree that the way the article is a bit out of place the way it is right now. I would like to bring to your attention what are called trampolines, and if there is really a need to demistify half-life (there is, high-schoolers learn about half-life and at that level it is completely inaccessible), then a trampoline could be in place. Wikipedia may not be a how-to manual, but a case has already been made for trampolines, and the only thing lacking is volunteers with enough understanding and will to create the articles.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For high-school accesible demistification of the concept of half-life I consider most appropriate to perform experiments and correct computer simulations. See in [1] how to test the behavior of the last atoms. The proponent of the fork lacks to understand that validation of physics-math models consists in comparing the model's behavior with experimental observations of real physical systems or valid simulations (physical and/or computer). The references given here describe how to test the validity (or not) of the exponential formula for small number of atoms with simple simulations, experiments, and computer code. Physics describes nature. When a formula can mimic nature we accept such a model and use it. In radioactive decay, the exponential model does not apply for small number of atoms (or small number of atoms are not within the domain of validity of the formula or equation or table). The DIY experiments use pennies or m&m candies. [2], [3]. A similar experiment is performed in college with isotopes of a very short half-life, e.g., see Fig 5 in [4]. See how to write a computer program that simulates radioactive decay including the required randomness in [5]. Let high-schoolers experience the behavior of the last atoms! Jclerman 11:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The table is wrong--mathematically incorrect according to the specific principle it aims to clarify (as explained on the parent article Talk:Half-life, but not corrected by proponent of the forked article). The page's proponent claims the results table is for an equation for a process by which each atom of 14C transforms into an atom of 14N, given a starting amount of 14C. Observation: the total number of atoms is not constant, therefore the table is not correct for the issue at hand. The proponent supports it "The issue here is not the tables anyway or who created them or how since the facts they are intended to illustrate can be reproduced by virtually anyone using virtually any method." I don't see how false facts can be used to support anything about anything, nor why they should be included anywhere in Wikipedia. DMacks 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the tables. I don't know what Jclerman is going on about though, why are you trying to dictate how to teach high schoolers? I don't mean to be rude but your speech largely resembles rambling, and it may be that you are not a native English speaker but it is incredibly difficult to follow your discussion. Is it really neccessary to mention that "Physics describes nature" in a discussion like this?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article forks are not good, and the tables make the article ugly. Try wikibooks? --Improv 14:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article forks are not how content disputes are resolved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jclerman. Melchoir 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -lethe talk + 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've received a message from the author recently that the article has been substantially revised. I have looked at the article and I still think we're better off without the fork. -lethe talk + 14:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per TenOfAllTrades ---CH 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The majority opinion here is based upon the notion that half life computation is entirely dependent upon and a matter of probability. While the application of half life computation is probabilistic in some cases it is highly deterministic in other cases. Take a annuity account for instance. A steady exponential loss is deterministic rather than probabilistic as would be the case if the losses varied at random as with an open market sub account. Since the Half-life computation article now contains both probabilistic and deterministic computation computer code (and examples) it is more comprehensive than similar articles on half life which deal only with probabilistic applications and are somewhat more dependent upon symbolism which some users find difficult or have too little time to absorb. Rather than deletion perhaps you can suggest another name. Thanks and have a nice day. ...IMHO (Talk) 04:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sorry, but IMHO doesn't seem to comprehend the subject matter. Forcing the issue through a fork is not the way to resolve this. -- Ec5618 16:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks (if IMHO wishes) then delete. Obviously, IMHO believes that he has a useful original approach to the pedegogy of the subject: let him work it out where it belongs. The article is devoted to the use of computer code, rather than math, to explain a mathematical concept, which strikes me as idiosyncratic. There are points that should be added to Half-life and/or Exponential decay, and both need actual references, but neither problem is addressed by this article. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Half-life article now seems to have incorporated some of the basic ideas about which I was concerned into the body of the article thus somewhat relieving the need for those ideas to be expressed elsewhere. However, a single article on half life (see: the wide variety of articles needed to cover the topic in the Wikipedia) especially one based entirely upon mathematics without any practical computational example (see: Rule of three (mathematics) as an example and especially one that shows the probablistic or random nature of the computations) in light of the many deterministic applications of half life in the everyday real world seems a bit elitist, egotistical and selfish to me. ...IMHO (Talk) 23:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article as it now stands has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My vote remains. I think honesty is better than diplomacy here: the article still betrays deep misunderstandings over what's going on. In particular, the sections "What happens to Carbon-14 when it decays?" and "Continuous and Discrete Decay" are completely wrong. I can't get into specifics because there's just too much. If you want to fix the article, you'll have to tear it down, read some books, and start over; none of this accumulation of notes and apologies on top of the same rotten foundation. Melchoir 15:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I have to echo Melchior's concerns. The article's tone still represents the author's attempt to push his own view of radioactive decay ("...such a claim fails to consider the following fact...") and is misleading to the point of inaccuracy. Blocks of sample code, flatly, do not belong in articles. Finally, the article is still a content fork, which is a fault that no amount of editing will repair. Pce3 has gone so far as to avoid any internal links to the original half-life article, preferring to use an external link ([6]) so as to avoid mentioning Wikipedia's (longer, more detailed, and more comprehensive) article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto. Problems persist in the new version. Just to single one of them, the original blunder that started all these discussions: the table now called Transition of Carbon-14 to Nitrogen-14 still reflects a grave contradiction between its numbers and the narrative which imply deficiencies in physics, logic, and computer code. E.g.:
  • between Cycle 1 and Cycle 2: 5E+307 atoms of C14 decay into 1 single atom of N14. Where are the missing (5E+307)-1 N14 atoms?
  • ...
  • between Cycle 1024 and Cycle 1025: 1 single atom of C14 decays into 1E+307 atoms of N14. Which process creates 1E+307 atoms out of a single one?
Needles to repeat it again and again, as it has been said already, the number of C14-decayed + N14-created atoms at each cycle should remain equal and constant throughout the whole table if it is to reflect both the correct physics and the proponent's own model. Jclerman 16:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer to focus on the fact that this is partly a content fork, and partly a how-to article on a radioactive-decay simulation (or both), and each is prohibited by policy. If this article were the very best article it could be, it would still meet criteria for deletion. I am sorry that IMHO has misunderstood this and put so much obvious hard work into a sincere-but-futile effort. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
It was necessary to create this article apart from the Half-life article in order to show computer code and data involved in the computation to avoid inappropriate and continued deletion from the Half-life article. ...IMHO (Talk) 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of this page would mean that the Wikipedia stands for depriving readers (and potential financial contributors) factual information which they can understand and comprehend. ...IMHO (Talk) 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information provided by this article differs from the Half-life article by expanding the results of the probabilistic method of computation (with less reliance upon archaic symbology) and showing the mathematical equations, computer code and actual results of both the probabilistic and the deterministic methods of computation. Special attention is given to the primary application of half life computation in Carbon-14 dating where integer versus decimal variables should be used. Expansion of the Half-life article is necessary to demonstrate and clarify the correct interpretation of the mathematics in regard to their application to a Carbon-14 dating scenario. Since User:jclerman insists that the half-life decay of Carbon-14 proceeds ad infintium regardless of Carbon-14 sample size it is clear that User:jclerman is using decimal rather than integer variables in his thinking which simply do not apply. By refusing to allow this clarification and example to be included in the Half-life article User:jclerman and the Half-life article fail to uphold the WP:NPOV policy and the Half-life article should be tagged for deletion instead. ...IMHO (Talk) 09:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...IMHO (Talk) 06:34, 24 June 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.