Talk:division property of equality

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion debate[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

division property of equality[edit]

Seems textbooky/encyclopedic to me. DCDuring TALK 11:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

SOP, delete.​—msh210 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 19:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete.RuakhTALK 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not SoP. I can’t understand what it means and would have to see a definition before I would have any idea what it was. It looks very strange. —Stephen (Talk) 01:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a property of equality that relates to division. Hm.... I'm actually striking my comment above. I still think we should delete this, but can't articulate why. I do think we should keep Ohm's law and Pythagorean theorem.​—msh210 (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete; seems like a fairly standard property name, and outside the range of Wiktionary to document. Also, I believe that forms like "multiplication or division properties of equality" or "the division and multiplication properties of equality" or "the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division properties of equality", all of which showed up in the first page of a Google Books search tend to indicate some of parts.--Prosfilaes 07:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep. This is definitely not SoP. Nominated by a noted deletionist. From what I remember, there was some RFD on laws and principles, such as Newton's first law or Pareto principle. The term division property of equality seems to refer to a law or a universally quantified theorem. Among theorems, there is "Pythagorean theorem", recently nominated for deletion by the same deletionist. Old discussion found: Talk:law of diminishing marginal utility. The discussed group of entries: Bragg's law, Kepler's laws, Metcalfe's law, Coulomb's law, Murphy's law, Boyle's law, Charles's law, Hooke's law, Hubble's law, Kirchhoff's current law, Kirchhoff's voltage law, Newton's first law, Newton's second law, Newton's third law, Ohm's law. As an admission, it is easier to guess the meaning of "division property of equality" than the meaning of Kepler's laws, but the ease of guessing is not sufficient for the term to be mere sum-of-parts. --Dan Polansky 08:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The entries for eponyms seem to be red herrings in the discussion, quite distinct from, irrelevant to, and distracting from this case. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The eponyms are not red herrings. They do not serve to demonstrate the non-sum-of-partness. Instead, they serve to demonstrate that the class of specific entities comprising theorems, principles, and laws is by common practice included in Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 13:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be division property, a property applicable to equality, inequality, etc.? (just a question) Lmaltier 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, the property that applies to equality doesn't apply to inequality, and I can't think of anything else it applies to. There are no Books, Scholar, Web, or Groups hits for "the division property of equality and of".​—msh210 (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand it does also apply to inequality: if you change all = to inequality in the definition, it's still true. It also applies to > and < (if you consider the set of positive numbers). And, if you Google "division property of" -equality, you find many pages. But there might be several senses used, this is worth a check. Lmaltier 20:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry: you're right.: it does apply to inequality, but not to >, <, ≥, or ≤ (except as restricted to, for example, the set of positive numbers, but who does that?). But the fact that "division property of" applies to many things just means that many things have a properties relating to division, not that "division property" has many senses.​—msh210 (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a strong argument to keep only division property, if this phrase has a precise sense. Lmaltier 18:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Seems like e.g. thermal conductivity of metals. Actually, I'm not sure. Equinox 23:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't any more idiomatic than "addition property of equality", "subtraction property of equality", "multiplication property of equality", "reflexive property of equality", "symmetric property of equality", "transitive property of equality", or any other property that equality has. Nor are these properties restricted to equality. These phrases are unidiomatic and can be understood from assembly of the parts. --EncycloPetey 16:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
For reflexive, symmetric... I agree. For addition... I disagree: what this means is not obvious at all. But I would keep division property... only. Lmaltier 19:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Still not seeing SoP, sorry. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
division property is not SOP. But the statement that equality has this property does not belong to the vocabulary of the English language, it's just stating that equality has the division property. Lmaltier 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Why not agree with addition? Do you want the addition property of inequality [1] and entries for other addition properties specific to certain forms of comparison? --EncycloPetey 04:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not SOP because nowhere in the name is zero mentioned. Even if it were, it could be keepable if it passes the lemming test, but I tend to agree with Lmaltier. Move to division property. DAVilla 03:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The bit about zero is a limitation of the mathematical operation of division, and neither specific to nor limited to this particular application of division. Nor is zero the only potential problem number in higher mathematics; it depends on the set of numbers chosen for the particular situation. --EncycloPetey 04:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)