Difference between revisions 99011829 and 99213211 on enwiki

There is a history of dispute with respect to the article, which can be traced from it's previous location ([[hypernumber]]), in the [[Talk:Hypernumber|talk]] page. Ignoring all the references that I gave (most of them formally published) and replacing them with a single reference to a single-user-maintained religious web site is inacceptable to me, therefore I resurrected the deleted content here as a first step. Maybe the new location, [[Musean hypernumber]], is more acceptable for the time being. Je(contracted; show full)

== Notability ==

Could you add some references to where ''other'' people have referred to these numbers? As it stands, it's not clear that this material is widely studied at all, with so many references by the same author, and almost all of them in the same journal. [[User:CMummert|CMummert]] 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
⏎
⏎
:Dear Dr. Mummert - In order to support notability, you were asking whether these numbers were "widely studied"? I wish they were. To me they are a widely ''referred-to'' concept that is in deep need of study. Other than [[Charles Musès]] and Kevin Carmody, I only know about myself [http://www.prisage.com/P] having formally published in a mathematical context. Informally but mathematical, there are references in monographs by Robert de Marrais (e.g. [http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0011260] and others) or self-maintained web pages (e.g. Tony Smith's [http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/]). But, most other references are outside the field of mathematics, in attempts to link consciousness with mathematical concepts, and in spiritual and religous ideas (an internet search shows all kinds of mentions, some serious; I don't want to go there).
:To support notability here, I would personally put de-mystification first. I picture Wikipedia showing what hypernumbers after Musès really are, what actually has mathematical support, and what is to-date speculative concept. Without an easily accessible overview here, we would continue to leave the concept open for exploitation by various agendas, some questionable. For example, people who are contemplating joining the "lion path" regligious movement are not pulling-up journal articles.
:Secondly, I find the article notable for completeness, taking advantage of Wikipedia to expose a wider public to a concept. If the introduction of an article is reflecting the nature of the article itself, I find it justifiable to mention even fringe topics like the current.
:Obviously, my personal involvement in ongoing research is a motivation to raise awareness to the concept. I'm working with a small group to establish rigorous defining relations for number concepts that are similar to Musean numbers. To us, Musean hypernumbers are obviously notable. I would put this third to support notability, knowing that this is its weakest pillar.
:Hopefully the above outlines and supports notability. Please let me know if you have any suggestions on how certain concerns could be accomodated. I still have to incorporate feedback (see above) into the article, and hope to have it updated by the end of January.
:Thanks, Jens [[User:Koeplinger|Koeplinger]] 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)