Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inversion (discrete mathematics)

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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn and no other arguments for delete. Mandsford 01:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inversion (discrete mathematics)

[edit]
Inversion (discrete mathematics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable term unlikely to grow beyond a dictionary definition. Pnm (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well defined concept in a standard textbook on the subject, which is to say that the term has received significant coverage in reliable sources intellectually independent of it. RayTalk 03:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. I heard of this concept, referred to by this word, so many times in so many different talks at the MIT combinatorics seminar, and in some at the MIT applied math seminar, and in some at the University of Minnesota's combinatorics seminar, to think of it as anything but a universally standard term. Why is non-notability asserted? Or that it's unlikely to grow beyond a definition? One should check Google Scholar before saying something like that. (The combinatorics seminar at MIT actually meets twice a week---or did when I was there. That means attending it moderately regularly for three years, as I did, is a fair number of hours....) Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would be useful in measuring the efficacy of various sorting techniques, and perhaps in selecting which one to use in an application. However, the article needs to be expanded beyond just a definition. For example, showing which sorting algorithms run fastest when the input is expected to have an inversion number less than, say, 1% of its maximum possible value. Or how much a single pass of some algorithm (e.g. bubble sort) reduces the inversion number. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is surely notable, and there is plenty of material that could be added to this article. I have added the combinatorics stub template, which gets it listed as a math article as well as a computer science article. Hopefully someone will take it upon themselves to add some material. Jim.belk (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google scholar finds over 100 papers that have this subject in their title. No doubt there are many others about inversions but with other choices of title words. Clearly a well-established and significant concept in combinatorics. The current article is little more than a dicdef but (unlike with some less-notable subjects) there's no reason to expect it to remain in that state forever. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Inversion of a permutation" sounds as if you apply a function to a permuation and the value you get is its "inversion". I think "Inversion in a permutation" might be better. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2010 (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.