Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 NO CONSENSUS. Everybody please take note that this is what we call a debate! Obviously, much has changed and been (dis-)agreed upon during the debate and the only reasonable outcome is no-action since we are not at all clear on what to do. I would make one comment however: I will not count 'votes' such as Klonimus's which explicitly says he has no feeling at all on the article and is merely (and literally) voting to force things in one direction. That seems inappropriate and very unnecessary to me. Admins can judge for themselves whether there is consensus or not: we do not need spurious 'votes' such as that to help us out. Also note that a poll on extending the debate has no useful precedent and is largely unnecessary anyway since the backlog in closing AfDs is usually at least several days beyond the 5 stipulated and much of this discussion doesn't really deal with deletion-or-not and could be carried to the Talk: page of the article. (I'm going to remove the headers here since they upset a bot that counts the open afds.)-Splashtalk 22:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics

This article is little more than the authors own independent views on Q.M. The only references cited are general treatments of Q.T. or computer science and the author’s own publications on the subject in non-refereed journals. This is a clear violation of the NOR policy at a minimum, as well as being blatantly self-promoting. DV8 2XL 01:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Votes

  • Delete per nom DV8 2XL 01:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 01:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Extend voting period by 10 days to allow the ariticle originator to respond. Klonimus 07:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Just like the nom says, delete.—Gaff ταλκ 02:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and NOR. - Sensor 02:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: I would have preferred to discuss this article on its talk page first. However, I can't find much to recommend the article. For example:
  1. It has the same problems that I alluded to in my dispute statement in the quantum indeterminacy article, particularly since all the quotes from that article were literally plunked into this one.
  2. Though thinking about logic, process calculi, quantum mechanics and everything else is an exciting activity (it is useful to brainstorm) I can't figure out the unifying theme, if any of this article.
  3. I think the article contains statements which are...bizarre: Consider the following statement
"Quantum indeterminacy carries over into the Actor model because of its use of arbitration for determining which message is next in the arrival ordering of an Actor that is sent multiple messages concurrently (e.g. by using arbiters in the implementation of Actor systems)."
As best I can determine this is wrong.
Having said that, I think Hewitt should have first the benefit of presenting a defense of the article; the article needs change no matter what happens. I will abstain (for now; my mind is changeable if I see reasons to do otherwise) and propose in any case an RfC See below.--CSTAR 02:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. I will only add that I cannot see where any of the cited literature deals with the putative subject of this article (namely a connection between quantum mechanics and the actor model arbitration scheme). Instead they deal with either QM or the actor model. That leaves the connection between them undocumented in the literature, and therefore a violation of NOR. --EMS | Talk 03:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with everything CSTAR says. Furthermore, and pace frayed patience, I think that Carl Hewitt ought to have been consulted before this AfD was put together. --- Charles Stewart 03:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: You might try reading Computers without Clocks by Ivan Sutherland and Jo Ebergen to gain some intuition. Then ask the following question: In terms of quantum physics, how does an arbiter work? BTW, there is a huge literature on arbiters and the quantum physics of integrated circuits.
    The connection between the Actor model and quantum physics has been published many times, e.g., there is discussion in the following proceedings of a refereed conference:
    • Carl Hewitt and Gul Agha. Guarded Horn clause languages: are they deductive and Logical? International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Ohmsha 1988. Tokyo.
    There are references to the phenomenon in papers published in refereed journals as well.
    Regards,--Carl Hewitt 04:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    I apologize for the extreme brevity of the above comments. Because I am away to a conference, I cannot respond fully. The questions, suggestions, and comments here are greatly appreciated and are deserving of a full response.--Carl Hewitt 07:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Further Comment. Though this is not a judicial process, I ask Carl to rely on a more "progressive" dialogue strategy. Please try not to respond to questions with questions (it sounds Socratic, but in fact is a very "regressive" strategy--it does not advance the dialogue). To answer the questions implicit in this page, could you please say: "Such and such published papers discusses the relation between actors and quantum mechanics in the following way". Moreover, your rhetorical response
      Try reading ... Then ask the following question: "in terms of quantum mechanics, how does an arbiter work"?
    is not helpful, to me at least. I don't know how arbiters work in terms of quantum mechanics; am I supposed to figure this out? Please tell me. But the article in dispute sure does no such thing (nor does another article in which I disputed another quantum claim of yours. I can't remember it now). Instead the article in dispute provides quotes from Einstein, Thomas Kuhn, Hawking, Penrose. Also why do you insist on bringing Chris Fuchs into this?--CSTAR 05:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see any connection based on the Sutherland and Ebergen article. Their methods of handling asynchony and arbitration are based on deterministic circuits, while QM is nondeterministic. The conference proceeding that you reference I would need to look up, but as you are a co-author it fails to overcome the concerns of NOR and self-promotion. Beyond that, saying "There are references ..." is most unimpressive. Please list them (preferably in the talk page for the article) as CSTAR has requested. --EMS | Talk 05:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a fine line between "refactoring disputed content", and "POV fork", and this seems to cross it, I'm afraid. With the same underlying problems, as per nom. Delete Alai 05:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or possibly transwiki to WikiBooks if the author is interested. It makes an interesting essay, but I didn't find anything that would prevent classifying it at original research. I'd consider it to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and if Carl Hewitt is interested, this may become a WikiBook on his take of the actor model. --Pjacobi 07:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like an odd mix of computer science and QM. Replicates a pile of stuff that the same author put into Quantum uncertaintly. Looks more like OR than a proper article. Also: CH says "The connection between the Actor model and quantum physics has been published many times, e.g., there is discussion in the following proceedings of a refereed conference: Carl Hewitt and Gul Agha. Guarded Horn clause languages: are they deductive and Logical?". Which makes me think (a) if this is even vaguely mainstream, he should be able to cite someone other than himself; and (b) something more recent than 1988; and (c) a proper paper not just a discussion from a conference proceeding. Nonetheless, as per C*, if CH can come up with some defence, I'll reconsider. William M. Connolley 08:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. Agree with CSTAR, except that I note that (at least I) have already had a long-running debate with Hewitt on these topics; see talk page on Metastability in electronics, now moved to Arbiter (electronics). My frustration with Hewitt is that he makes assertions and then persistently dodges questions and criticisms. This could be an interesting topic if Hewitt took the subject matter seriously, and actually gave it the attention he claims it deserves. linas 13:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move (without redirect) to The case for quantum mechanics being incomplete and bring article into line with core WP standards. What I see here is a consensus for delete, and i don't think it is a sound consensus. I'm afraid I will be away from WP until Monday, if by chance the AfD has not been closed by then I may amend this vote. --- Charles Stewart 11:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    If you look at The case for quantum mechanics being incomplete, you will find that the text relevant to that subject is now there. The result is a highly POV article, but there is no reason why it cannot be toned down. I advise working with Carl to get it properly link in the the relevant QM articles as well as trying to at least partially resolve the POV issue.
  • Keep: the article should be moved to a more appropriate name, but it is not now clear where the best home for the article is. One point in particular: is it best to treat the relationship of the actor model to logic and physics separately, when there is a tradition of considering the relationship of computation, logic and physics to each other that dates back to Turing, and passes through such distinguished thinkers as Robin Gandy, Dana Scott and Robin Milner? I'm inclined to think that the contributions of the actor model to this discussion are best placed within a section of a broader article. Until it is clear what the right fate for this material should be, I regard a delete outcome as premature. --- Charles Stewart 18:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
A broader article would certainly be welcome as well. However, I am aware of no technical published work on the relationship of computation to physics by Robin Gandy, Dana Scott, or Robin Milner. Also when I spoke at length with Milner last summer he did not know of any published work on the relationship of process caluli to physics in contrast to biology where there are extensive connections.--Carl Hewitt 18:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The Gandy article I had in mind was his 1980 ‘Church’s Thesis and Principles of Mechanisms’, in Barwise J., Keisler J.J. and Kunen K., eds., The Kleene Symposium, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 123–145. It's on the limits of computation and the possibility of hypercomputation and has inspired a significant literature. Scott&Milner's work developing the classical automata-theoretic idea of transducer is what I had in mind: offhand I can't name references, but it is what leads into the work of Abramsky that CSTAR mentioned elsewhere. This work, while it takes physics seriously, is definitely computer science, but the IJMPC article I cited elsewhere is physics&agents. --- Charles Stewart 18:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename since the article no longer mentions "quantum" as it has been reorganized as per suggestions of editors on this page and objections to article above no longer apply. Also I suggest that the vote be postponed until Monday in order to give Charles Stewart a chance to participate further.--Carl Hewitt 15:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    What remains documents no connection to physics now, and indeed seems to lack a thesis at all. So I retain my vote to outright delete this article. Perhaps you can move the text into a core actor model article and have it be useful there, but overall I stand behind my admonition that you stop trying to impose the actor model on theoretical physics. --EMS | Talk 13:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    I have clarified the article to make more clear the relationship to physics. More clarification is welcome.
    There is a great more published material on this subject that needs to be reported in the Wikipedia. Therefore the article should stand by itself since there will not be room to fold it into another article.
    Note that as I have said before: There is no attempt in this article (or others) to impose the Actor model on theoretical physics. Instead it seems that you cannot accept that the Actor model is dependent on physics.
    Regards,--Carl Hewitt 15:10, 21 October 2005(UTC)
    1. IMO, you have failed to document an actual dependency. Certainly the actor model can deal with pheonomena caused by quantum and relativistic effects, but to say that it is "dependent" on those effects is not appropriate.
    2. Even if said dependency exists, that would not justify the tight concpetual connections that you keep attempting to forge. You may as well say that walking is a major branch of physics since walking depends on physics.
    3. You have (most importantly) utterly failed to establish that these connections to theoretical physics are accepted as an inate attribute of the actor model in the field of computer science.
The connection betwenn the Actor model and physics is well accepted in computer science as demonstrated by many citations including the following which I dug up immedately in a Google search:
  • T. Frühwirth and A. Herold and V. Kuchenhoff and T. LeProvost and P. Lim and E. Monfroy and M. Wallace. Constraint Logic Programming in Logic Programming in Action. Springer-Verlag. 1992.
  • Mehmet Ali Orgun and Wanli Ma. An Overview of Temporal and Modal Logic Programming Proceedings of {ICTL}'94: The 1st International Conference on Temporal Logic. Springer-Verlag. 1994.
  • Mehmet A. Orgun and William W. Wadge. Extending Temporal Logic Programming with Choice Predicates Non-Determinism Journal of Logic and Computation. Vol 4. No. 6. 1994.
  • S. Abdennadher and T. Frǔhwirth and M. Marte and H. Meuss. A Confluence Test for Concurrent Constraint Programs
In addition a classic paper on the subject The Challenge of Open Systems has been reprinted in a standard reference work: The foundation of artificial intelligence---a sourcebook Cambridge University Press. 1990.
Regards,--Carl Hewitt 07:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In general, you are showing why it is a bad idea for a researcher to create articles on their own work here. IMO, a subject such as this becomes appropriate to Wikipedia when someone else independently decides that the subject is worthy of an article. That is the standard that I have chosen for the placement of my research into this venue. I strongly advise that you adopt the same standard. --EMS | Talk 17:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Due to my conversation with Montalvo below, I can now very succinctly state why I say that you are imposing the actor model on theoretical physics: Even if this purported connection was known in computer science, it still is not known in any branch of theoretical physics. You are trying to use Wikipedia to announce these supposed connections to the physics community. However, Wikipedia is not a billboard, and in the context of theoretical physics this connection is very much original research. This article exists in both the actor model and quantum mechanics realm. In the former realm, it is permissible (or at least worth the benefit of the doubt), but in the latter it is original research. For an article like this to be acceptable, it must be acceptable in all of its realms. For this article, that is not the case.
[see Relationship to physics does not original research make below. ---Montalvo 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)]
The updated article is no longer in the category quantum mechanics rectifying an editing error in its creation. This makes the categorization compatible with the new article in that it does not refer to quantum mechanics.--Carl Hewitt 07:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW - This also is why the article on the actor model and general relativity got killed too, along with all of your attempts to link the actor model to GR. --EMS | Talk 03:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Comment. A theory of walking certainly depends on physics. In fact the physics is quite intricate. I am willing to accept a claim that the Actor model purports to be a model of physical concurrent computation. You keep proposing a maximalist position contra Hewitt which should not be the intent of this VfD. --CSTAR 17:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    First of all, you have missed my point, which is that the linkage (if present) is having its significance totally overblown. I can accept the claim itself too, but as a claim and not as an established fact or speculation worthy of an independent article. Beyond that, I 100% agree with you about the intent of this VfD. If you can show that I am mistaken on my point #3 above, I will change my vote, and encourage others to do the same. --EMS | Talk 21:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments:See also quantum indeterminacy in computation and its talk page for a third example in the same vein. linas 13:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    Ah yes, that's the one (quantum indeterminacy in computation) that I couldn't remember in my comment above.--CSTAR 13:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    Carl and his quantum stuff is also leaking into unbounded nondeterminism; see in particular the Special:Whatlinkshere/Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum_physics for a list of the other articles into which this dispute is leaking. Again, an interesting topic; the problem is its poorly treated. linas 14:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Further comment. The list of references of this article is puzzling. Samson Abramsky and a few others have recent work on quantum protocols, not just in connection with cryptography in the braoder context of information exchange. This is recent work on a clearly related topic. Glaring omission.--CSTAR 13:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      This article is not about quantum computing, even in Carl's viewpoint. So the lack of that reference is actually appropriate. Beyond that, this subthread belongs in the article's talk page. If you wish to continue it, please respond there. --EMS | Talk 20:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      The Abramnsky references are not all about quantum computing. Re your comment If you wish to continue it, please respond there. Why shouldn't I respond here? This is a discussion page.--CSTAR 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      Respond as you wish, but if this starts getting overly detailed I none-the-less submit the proposition that if may be benificial to offload this thread to that page. I have seen these pages get out of hand with all kinds of odd discussion, and seek to avoid that here. I see the focus of this page as the VfD, not the references per se.
      I will take your word for it that Abramsky is germane. However, unless you can make a case that his word justifies the contents of this article, I see no need to modify my vote because of it. --EMS | Talk 02:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Further comment on references. In reply to comments above, the point of this further comment is two-fold. (a) That Hewitt's article omits these (and other references), and (b) that the concept of an article on Protocols, process calculi and quantum mechanics is entirely reasonable. That's why I would have preferred that a discussion in that page precede a VfD.
  • Samson Abramsky, Bob Coecke: A Categorical Semantics of Quantum Protocols. quant-ph/0402130
Quantum protocols are an important theoretical element in constructions of various measures of entanglement, see for instance
  • Dagmar Bruss, Characterizing Entanglement quant-ph/0110078 pp 6 7 where distillation protocols are discussed. This has nothing with quantum computing in the sense of circuit or other paradigms.
I believe User:Chalst has a point, not because we should wait till Hewitt returns from a conference (that should not be a consideration), but procedurally this seems wrong-headed. I would like to point out the proceedings of a previous VfD against a Hewitt created category; in that instance I felt was the VfD entirely unjustified and I voted and argued against the VfD. As Asher Peres has said, truth in physics cannot determined by a poll. That VfD process was, in my opinion, not very felicitous [1].
  • Keep It seems to be that this AfD is an ambush because there was no talk page before it got brought up for deletion. This does not seem to be the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Most of this discussion should be moved to a talk page and the disputes resolved there. That said, here is why I think it should not be deleted.
  • The relation between the actor model (AM), mathematical logic (ML), and physics has not been stated clearly in the article. That does not mean that it doesn't exist, or that it's original work. Carl's ideas have been out there in the literature for decades. He's taught this idea for decades, so the idea is out there. He and other editors should be given time to state the connection more clearly before it gets nominated for deletion. Doing it without a talk discussion is unfair.
  • Here is how I understand the connection: the semantics of computation traditionally has rested on ML, but because of indeterminancy in arrival order of messages in concurrency it cannot rest on ML. It has to rest on physics. A semantics based on physics is crucial and fundamental to the AM.
  • The goal post keeps getting moved in this deletion discussion. First it was claimed that the idea was original. When Carl gave references, it was claimed that these were not refereed journals. I can plainly see that some of the references are in refereed journals. Then it was claimed that AM does not contain a physics result. When Carl said he's not claiming it does, that what he is claiming is that the model crucially depends on physics, it was claimed that no one in computer science (CS) accepts it, with no substatiation. If there is a controversy in CS, someone should come up with a story in the talk section with references and contribute the alternate point of view to the article. All the claims against the AM not being related to physics are orignial claims. The deleters should be held to the same standard of substatiation and non-originality that Carl is being held to.
  • And finally, no one holds other articles to the same standard of acceptance by the scientific community that this one is being held to. The result may be obscure and may have been ingnored by most of CS, but that doesn't make it original because the idea has been out there for decades. It doesn't make it non-notable just because people haven't taken enough note yet or haven't understood it's significance yet. Some people in CS have taken note, and making technical things understandable to more people is the job of the WP.
Yes, indeed many computer scientists have taken note of the published connection between the Actor model and physics citing it many times including the following that I dug up immediately with a Google search:
  • T. Frühwirth and A. Herold and V. Kuchenhoff and T. LeProvost and P. Lim and E. Monfroy and M. Wallace. Constraint Logic Programming in Logic Programming in Action. Springer-Verlag. 1992.
  • Mehmet Ali Orgun and Wanli Ma. An Overview of Temporal and Modal Logic Programming Proceedings of {ICTL}'94: The 1st International Conference on Temporal Logic. Springer-Verlag. 1994.
  • Mehmet A. Orgun and William W. Wadge. Extending Temporal Logic Programming with Choice Predicates Non-Determinism Journal of Logic and Computation. Vol 4. No. 6. 1994.
  • S. Abdennadher and T. Frǔhwirth and M. Marte and H. Meuss. A Confluence Test for Concurrent Constraint Programs
In addition a classic paper on the subject The Challenge of Open Systems has been reprinted in a standard reference work: The foundation of artificial intelligence---a sourcebook Cambridge University Press. 1990.
Regards,--Carl Hewitt 06:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not an anbush. The material was forked over from Quantum indeterminacy and was discused at length in Talk:Quantum indeterminacy
    • This discussion is not about the validity of this idea; it is about an aleged violation of WP policy.
    • If you have information that can address the problems in this article, I would suggest you help Carl by editing them into the page, not here
    • I asked for references from third sources published in refereed journals in the original charge.
    • This is not the place to discuss WP policy. If you have issues with that I suggest you place them at Wikipedia:No original research

DV8 2XL 03:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Montalvo wrote:
The result may be obscure and may have been ingnored by most of CS, but that doesn't make it original because the idea has been out there for decades.
In my book you have just made the NOR case instead of refuted it. As long as an idea is peculiar to a single author, it is original to that author, and I don't care if that idea 50 minutes old or 50 years old.
Reading the references to the article and the citations to them in literature shows that this is not an idea peculiar to a single author; instead it is an accepted view in Computer Science.--Carl Hewitt 07:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I will concede your point, but I will stand by mine (which is a general one instead of being specific to this case). Also kindly note that without Montalvo's list of articles, I would have no evidence that your statement is true. Just please remember that your assertions regarding the actor model and physics are OK in CS, but OR in physics. --EMS | Talk 19:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Kindly realize that yelling (i.e. using all caps) is rude, and is not going to impress me. I realize that we are getting under your skin, but that is fair in that your actions got under ours some time ago. --EMS | Talk 19:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition, both the NPOV and No original research policies state that
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Now if this was just an "ancillary article" associated with the actor model, I'm not sure that the AfD would have been initiated. However, Carl has been very persistent in assuming the because things like relativity and quantum mechanics are (in his estimation) relevant to the actor model, that the actor model in turn is relevant to relativity and quantum mechanics. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. In these fields, the actor model is completely unknown, and the purported connection is totally OR.
More to the point, Carl brought over here a bunch of text that was inappropriate to quantum indeterminacy, turning this article into a medium for maintaining a strong connection between the QM articles and the actor model articles. It was so out of line that myself and another editor felt obliged to initiate this AfD. The offending text is now off elsewhere (in a wholely QM context) where hopefully it can become the basis for an encyclopedic article. (That text describes the case for QM being incomplete and has some value in or as an article on that topic.)
What now remains is a category link to category:quantum information science, which as best I can tell is a restatement of the same OR connection to QM. Given that this title calls for that link, I say that the article should just be deleted, and this inappropriate connection severed.
There is no category link between this article and category:quantum information science.--Carl Hewitt 07:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
In the meantime, given that it is germane to the actor model, Carl is free to mention the logical connection between the actor model and physical theory in the actor model article. However, if he wants to reference any physical theories, then he should do so only through links in the actor model article.
To summarize: In the context of physics, the actor model is unknown, and the mention of the actor model in any physics article or category is therefore a violation of NOR no matter how many respected and/or peer-reviewed CS journal articles that connection may have been mentioned in. Carl has by his actions turned this into a de-facto physics article, and so rendered it OR. I will therefore be happy to see it go.
--EMS | Talk 03:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Warning: Montalvo only has done only 8 edits so far. However, they do go back to July. I don't see him as a sock puppet because of the length of that history, but instead as a lurker. In any case, his lack of experience worth noting in this context. --EMS | Talk 03:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am mostly in agreement with Charles Stewart. The people arguing for deletion have valid concerns, which I share. Indeed, while it may well be true that the actor model is inspired by a (possibly misguided understanding of) relativity and quantum theory, I haven't seen any evidence that it uses these physical theories, and it certainly is not an interdisciplinary subject stradling computer science and physics. However, it is not yet obvious to me that the only way to resolve these concerns is to take the radical step of deleting the article instead of a discussion. In fact, I think the article has improved in that the questionable statement have been removed. Finally, I wish to note that I know some of the history of the conflict with Carl Hewitt, for instance the category on relativistic information science, that Carl is difficult to deal with in the context of Wikipedia, and that CSTAR, Linas, EMS, and others have reacted with a lot of patience. I hope that Carl also realizes this and that he will be cautious if he wants to continue contributing about his own work. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is now sufficiently different as various edits have made the point for the deletion unnecessary. Please note from the deletion guidelines Wikipedia:Guide to deletion:
You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).
I would also like to point out that the deletion process is not a poll, again from the deletion guidelines:
The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. Individuals will express strong opinions and may even "vote". To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not.
Admins should note that there is now not a clear consensus about deleting this article.--CSTAR 16:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree that there is no concensus to delete this article. The closing admin may count this vote as a keep vote for the purposes of closing this VfD and determining concensus. However I make no claims to having an opinion as to the encyclopeadic nature of the article in question at this time. Klonimus 09:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (if voting hasn't closed.) Without supporting documentation, which I haven't seen, and which I believe does not exist, there is no support for an article with that name, or having ever had that name. Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (if my vote still counts). Despite all the positive changes made in the past days, I am afraid I still view this text as original research, and therefore not material for an article in an online Encyclopedia. Karol 19:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Extend voting period
Since CH is away at a conference, we can't expect him to assemble a proper defence of the article at this point. I suggest that we delay the closing of votes until five days after CH returns from his conference. Otherwise, I will vote keep and in the event the article is not deleted, the AfD should be resubmitted at a more auspicious time. --- Charles Stewart 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: His duties at this conference have not stopped him from making nine edits to the page in question to-day. I would like to remind all that I nominated this for violating the NOR policy; to defend his position all he would have to do is append references linking the actor model to Q.T. from some other reputable source. As was said above: he should be able to cite someone other than himself. And he should know the rules of Wikipedia well enough by now to have done that in the first place. He has pushed this topic in other articles, if the lack of proper citations here was an oversight, he could dip into one of those for a link or a journal reference, but of course there none there either. DV8 2XL 23:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
There's a good deal of reason to be unhappy with CH's behaviour as an editor, and I think the voting pattern on this page reflects exhausted patience. However, I'm not at all happy with the way things have been argued on this page. For NOR to be a reason for deletion, it is not enough to establish that the contents of the article qualify as original research (which has not conclusively been established), but one should also show that the topic does not support a good WP article. To paraphrase what CSTAR said, the intersection between computation, logic and physics is a fascinating one, and even if no case can be made that the actor model gives an interesting perspective of quantum physics, there may still be a worthy article here. Without intending to make personal criticism, I don't think this AfD was well put together (ie. the AfD was assembled without so much as a question being asked on either CH's talk page or that of the article's): giving CH a bit more time to put his case together (and allowing him access to his literature, etc.) can be seen as some sort of remedy for the AfD's defect. --- Charles Stewart 00:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
"For NOR to be a reason for deletion, it is not enough to establish that the contents of the article qualify as original research ... but one should also show that the topic does not support a good WP article"

You have me at a disadvatage sir, as you seem to be reading from a different version of Wikipedia:No original research than I am. DV8 2XL 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Same text, but I take the application of NOR to AfD to mean that one should repair the article if possible, and delete it only if that cannot be done. Otherwise one has the absurd stipulation that if one adds a paragraph introducing a neologism (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents) to a perfectly good article, then one ought to delete the whole article. --- Charles Stewart 02:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Then you need to show that this is (or can be) a reasonable article.
For example: I have created a modification to general relativity (GR) which I refer to by the acronym FBGR, which is unpublished except in the proceedings of an unrefereed conference, and is in any case mostly unknown amongst physicists.
  • Case 1: If I create a article on FBGR, it would be totally NOR, and would be deleted.
  • Case 2: If I add a section on FBGR to the GR article, then what is OR is only that section, and the article can be repaired by reverting out my work.
I submit to you the proposition that the connection between QM and the actor model as claimed in the title of this article is wholely undocumented except in the writings of Carl Hewitt. That make the analogous situation re my OR like Case 1 instead of Case 2. --EMS | Talk 02:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Do note the following:
  1. I have told Carl that I would not mind seeing the part about the incompleteness of QM expoted to an article called something like "The case for quantum mechanics being incomplete". What he has is a start for the article, and in the context of its title the POV is almost bearable.
  2. Carl made a great effort to attached the Actor model to general relativity a month or two ago, which I was a part of beating back. He has no sense that "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine". I see this as part of his propaganda, which is how is ends up being NOR. (OTOH as best I can tell the actor model article is legitimate and benefits from Carl's expertise in the model itself. It is these odd connections to areas that Carl obviously is not very experienced in that are the problem.)
--EMS | Talk 03:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not my aim to defend the article, and I am aware of CH's inappropriate pushing of the actor model. I doubt that CH can furnish references establishing the connection you describe, since otherwise why would these references not have been seen in CH's other edits trying to make the connection? Rather, I think that a piece of courtesy that I think is normally due, namely to discuss the proposed deletion beforehand, was not made, and given CH does not have his usual access to his resources, I think we should give CH extra time to prepare his defence. I don't see what benefit accrues to making the defence a rush job. --- Charles Stewart 03:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
We should remember that this content actually had a lengthy discussion here before it was forked by Carl from quantum indeterminacy. This is important, because it is not evident from the article at hand, but most editors that took part in that dispute are probably reluctant to repeat it for the nth time. Maybe it would be a good idea to copy that dispute to the talk page of Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics, or at least leave a link to it? Karol 06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
PS CH's work on actor theory is very much legitimate, well respected, and I think highly of it. I was initially excited when I saw that he was contributing to WP, and likewise disappointed when I saw his modus operandi. I hold out some hope that things will improve. --- Charles Stewart 03:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I oppose extending the voting period. CH has now made 10's of edits (too many to be easy to count). He clearly has enough time to participate if he wishes too. I also don't see anything to make me change my delete vote. William M. Connolley 11:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC).
  • I also oppose this per William Connolly. --EMS | Talk 13:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I support extending the voting period so as to allow organic growth and improvment to this article. Klonimus 08:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I wasn't going to vote, because it seemed obvious that both Carl Hewitt and Charles Steward had time to react, but I felt I had to react to Klonimus' remark. I don't think that extending the voting period will lead to improvement of the article, quite the contrary, because rigorous action is not allowed while an article is being discussed at AfD. Besides, AfD is not for improving articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and saw that in fact pretty much everything is allowed, even moving the page (thanks CSTAR, your comment alerted me to reread the guide). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (via edit conflict)
  • I changed my vote about 4.5 hours after the 5*24 hours voting period a strict interpretation of policy would say had ended, but I guess that nearly all admins would count the modified vote, not the original vote, in a count. Apart from that, it looks to me that everybody who weighed in during the discussion period has cast a vote by yesterday, and so we can count the discussion finished. There's clearly no consensus to delete (my count: 8 deletes, 4 keeps and 1 redirect, excluding User:Montalvo's vote) --- Charles Stewart 20:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you know, but it doesn't hurt to repeat: AfD is not a vote. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Part of the AfD process is to poll WP editors to see whether there is a consensus. It's not a vote in the sense of election theory, but editors do vote, and vote totals are heeded. --- Charles Stewart 20:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What are you suggesting? By your count it's now 2 to 1 against.--CSTAR 21:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Which is rather short of the 3 to 1 against or 4 to 1 against that admins usually look for when determining the existence of a consensus on an AfD, especially when there seems to be a well-founded case against deleting. You're an admin: you should know that... --- Charles Stewart 13:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I had already concluded that there was not a consensus to delete (see my remarks above).--CSTAR 14:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm terribly sorry, I should have known better. The point I was making that the vote totals were indeed of interest to admins since it is likely the first thing they will take into account when determining whether there is a consensus. That there are other things they should take into account in this determination doesn't mean that the vote totals are unimportant. --- Charles Stewart 14:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A possible solution
Again I apologize for now being able to participate more fully. I had to stay up til 4:30AM yesterday to finish a conference paper which was due. Today I spent 7 hours driving. But I do want Wikipedia processes to work, so I stayed up late tonight even though the conference starts early tomorrow constructing a possible solution which is explained at Talk:Actor model, mathematical logic, and quantum physics.

I like the idea above of removing the Actor connection from Actor model, mathematical_logic, and quantum physics#Actor model and quantum physics and starting a new article "The case for quantum mechanics being incomplete" however it would be appropriate to balance the views already present with some other views on the subject. Since I do not have expertise in these other views, hopefully soneone else would supply them.

Eventually I will dig up the citaton for the indeterminacy of Arbiters being based on the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, but for obvious reasons I can't do it now. I have some other pressing things on my plate so hopefully this possible solution can help calm things down in the meantine.

Please see what you think. Thanks--Carl Hewitt 10:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)io

Also please note that the citation that I most need to dig up is not just a citation to my own work. The citation nneded is the underlying citaton to a published paper that established the connection between the quantum structure of integraged circuits and the indeterminacy of Arbiters.--Carl Hewitt 15:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. Please note that I cited an article in this discussion Talk:Quantum_indeterminacy_in_computation#Disputed statement which cast some doubt on your claims. That was on October 4. I have yet to see you cite any source anywhere on WIkipedia in support of any claim you made in that article on "the indeterminacy of Arbiters being based on the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics". None of the articles or books in the references section of Quantum_indeterminacy_in_computation come even remotely close to dealing with these issues. One of the books listed is [2]. It may be a useful book, but this is a book on QM for general audiences. The Fuchs reference is an article basically on foundations.
  2. Removing the Actor connection from the article currently in dispute, means reaming the article as well. However, please do not do that now.
--CSTAR 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree and I apologize for not getting to this sooner.--Carl Hewitt 15:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I see you started a renamed article. The name you chose for it is unfortunate. See my comments on the talk page.--CSTAR 04:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
After our discussion on the talk page, I renamed it Incompleteness of quantum physics.--Carl Hewitt 08:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization as per suggestions of Wikipedia editors
The article has now been reorganized as per suggestions of the Wikipedia editors above. Note that it no longer mentions "quantum."

Therefore I suggest that the article be renamed Actor model, mathematical logic, and physics--Carl Hewitt 04:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a better idea: If this article is kept then call it Actor model and mathematical logic. Just plain leave physics out of the title. If there are ways that the actor model and related paradigms are analogous to physical theory, then you may describe them, given that they are documented in the area of computer science. However, you cannot treat the actor model as being a part of physics due to this association. I repeat what I wrote above: The actor model is unknown to phsysicists and Wikipedia is not the place to introduce it to the physiscists. Any attempt to do so goes against NOR. However, if indeed the connection is now known to computer science through your efforts then in that context it is encyclopedic.
Perhaps the case for not mentioning physics in this title is best made in the name of Newton's book introducing classical mechanics to the world: "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" (latin which in english means "mathematical principles of natural philosophy"). So both physics and the actor model are examples of mathematical modelling anyway, and the purposrted connection can be described or not (and currently I notice that it is not described in the article) as is appropriate.
I won't rescind my delete vote. I for one want to see this title gone, and not even be a redirect. Beyond that, your kindly keeping the actor model out of the hair of us physicists would be most appreciated. --EMS | Talk 20:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: I for one want to see this title gone. Aside from titles in very specific categories (obscenities, incitement to commit a crime, racial or ethnic slurs, personal attacks and so on ) I didn't know there was a general Wikipedia policy on article titles. What is it?--CSTAR 21:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: When something gets under your skin enough, it may as well be an obscenity ;-).
I certainly am not invoking any Wikipedia policy. However, the title of this article does invoke a connection that I have stated above is OR. It seems to me that it is sensible that it should be removed given that, as either that connection ought to be documented (in which case NOR is invoked against it), or it is not in which case what is the use of it? In a case like this, I don't see that a policy is needed to say that it should be removed. --EMS | Talk 02:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I have clarified the connection with physics in the article.--Carl Hewitt 17:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Physics or not?
The dependence of the Actor model on physics is accepted in Computer Science, e.g., see "The Challenge of Open Systems" in a standard reference The foundation of artificial intelligence---a sourcebook Cambridge University Press, 1990 and other references in the artice. The published work reported in this article crucially depends on physics.

On the other hand, the claim that the Actor model does not depend on physics is orginal research. There are no published references to back up the latter claim.--Carl Hewitt 17:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Either way, these articles require substantive changes. Please see my comments on the talk page of that article. Please do not regard the outcome of this AfD as a "vindication" if it indeed does not get deleted. --CSTAR 17:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the article still requires improvement. Also your previous questions, comments, and suggestions have already resulted in substantial improvements. Thanks!
It is not the job of the Wikipedia to provide "vindication" as the Wikipedia does not adjudicate truth. It's job is more to report on published work.--Carl Hewitt 17:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
This is irrelevant to me. Look at it this way: You may know of President Bush, but that does not mean that President Bush knows of you. That the actor model knows of or utilizes physics does not mean that the actor model is known to physics.
I realize that it may seen wierd that something can be established in one venue and be OR in another. Perhaps this is a sign of how specialized the fields have become, but my own read is that the CS field has permitted itself to accept your claim without first demainding that it be validated in a physics context. However, done is done. I will respect the CS reality re the actor model is you will accept the physics reality for the same.
FYI - I do not see a true physics connection however. In the contested article, it is stated that
Instead of observing the internals of arbitration processes of Actor computations, we await outcomes.
So the physics of arbiters is not the issue, but instead the unpredictablitity of their results. If you are not concerned about the "internals" (and I don't see why you should be), then you are not concerned about the physics. This is not to say that you should not be curious about it, but rather that that physics is not fundamental to the actor model. Instead the resultant indeterminism of the outputs is. I encourage you to think about this. --EMS | Talk 15:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Physical indeterminacy in arbiters produces indeterminacy in Actors. The reason that we await outcomes is that we have no alternative because of indeterminacy.--Carl Hewitt 19:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. However, the actor model IMO is concerned with the outcome being indeterminate and not the physical cause itself. If you are challenged about the need to handle indeterminate outcomes, then you can cite QM, GR, and even chaos theory. I wish that I could get it through your thick skull that indeterminism forms the "junction" between physics and the actor model. Both exist at that junction, but only one or the other can exist away from that junction. --EMS | Talk 02:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey wait a minute, "getting through your thick skull" is not language we tolerate around here. --CSTAR 03:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that referees for computer science journals cannot be expected to validate claims made about physics, nor would I expect referees for physics journals to necessarily do a good job validating claims made about computer science. It's a question of the editors ability to select the right referees for the claims made in the paper, and these doubts go double if the claims are not featured in the abstract, but appear as remarks in the course of the main claims made in the paper (I'm not saying this is what happened with CH's paper, just noting a problem with WP's black-or-white policy that claims made in peer reviewed journals are accepted as sufficiently backed up). There are journals that somewhat straddle the divide between computer science and physics, eg. World Scientific's International Journal of Modern Physics C published this article about the simulation of physics by agents; see also their announcement message. But it's a thin crowd. I don't know what to recommend as a general line here, only to suggest that CH's case would be helped if he were to publish in a journal with credentials in physics, and that otherwise we are voyaging in not very well mapped territory. --- Charles Stewart 18:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It will be interesting to see what other physicists, e.g., Chris Fuchs, make of all this. However, it is unlikely that many practitioners in fields of science (e.g. Computer Science) whose results strongly depend on physics will themselves publish in physics journals.--Carl Hewitt 19:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Relationship to physics does not original research make

EMS writes above:

Due to my conversation with Montalvo below, I can now very succinctly state why I say that you are imposing the actor model on theoretical physics: Even if this purported connection was known in computer science, it still is not known in any branch of theoretical physics. You are trying to use Wikipedia to announce these supposed connections to the physics community. However, Wikipedia is not a billboard, and in the context of theoretical physics this connection is very much original research. This article exists in both the actor model and quantum mechanics realm. In the former realm, it is permissible (or at least worth the benefit of the doubt), but in the latter it is original research. For an article like this to be acceptable, it must be acceptable in all of its realms. For this article, that is not the case.

I disagree. Which scientific community accepts a result is irrelevant to whether it's original or not. Carl is not claiming a physics result? Note something being a result in physics is not the same as having a relationship to physics. Depending on physics does not put it into the physics realm. Physicists are free to read the CS literature. They just haven't. Encyclopedias, like this one, can aid this process.

Here is the argument in a nutshell. This result is crucially dependent on physics. It's significant in the CS community that it does depend on physics and not logic. It should be indexed in physics terms in the WP so physicists can find it. That's what encyclopedias do. They make results accessible across disciplinary boundaries.

I notice a whole lot of other categories listed under other categories when they're not inside them, such as category:pseudoscience as a subcategory of category:science.

Montalvo 23:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (also see Montalvo Talk)

Carl Hewitt at one point explicitly placed the actor model into category:general relativity and category:quantum mechanics. It was a battle to shove it out of that realm. More recently, he took over the article on quantum indeterminacy and when his higly POV physics text got removed from there it ended up here! So I wholeheartedly agree with you that
Depending on physics does not put [the actor model] into the physics realm.
To achieve that placement, explicit action is needed, and Carl has been all too happy to do so. My point is that not only does a dependency on physics not place something into the physics realm, but it does not justify such a placement either. I repeat: The actor model is not known to physics. That is why it should not even be indexed there. Because it is unknown to physics, such a placement is novel to the physics realm, and therefore is a violation of WP:NOR.
I hope that I have made my point. --EMS | Talk 02:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
To amplify what EMS said, no one is saying that it has been established that physicists cannot have anything to learn from the actor model, rather that the task of showing that the actor model is interesting to physicists is something that Wikipedia's core rules say explicitly that it is not to be used for, ie. that this what WP calls original research. If there is no consensus to delete CH's article, there is a consensus that CH has pushed some OR. --- Charles Stewart 13:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the question is more like "What is the purpose of categorization on the Wikipedia?" To me the purpose is to be of service to Wikipedia users in navigating the material. So my intention in putting in category links category:general relativity and category:quantum mechanics was to help users navigate between articles that report on published research in different categories. It was not to make any point, state any thesis, or impose any views.--Carl Hewitt 16:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Putting a link to actor model in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle page (or even worse a subsection! [3]) is hardly a help in navigating. --CSTAR 16:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Every time someone want to put their own (usually original) research where it does not belong, I see a grand redefinition of Wikipedia to suit themself. Carl's redefining categorization is no different. Categorization is a means of grouping related articles, so that people can explore a field with ease. It is not meant for trivially related or unrelated topics to use as a means of advertising. --EMS | Talk 06:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I just checked the WP:NOR article and nowhere does it say that research which is published and known in one field is original when "discovered" by another. The article says nothing about cross field tranfers being "original". In fact it says:
research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
and
In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view.
I take this to mean that if the origin of the source material, "not in physics", in this case, is disputed, then the controversy should be aired and explained not suppressed as being original.
Montalvo 17:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've discussed this point already: my opinion is that we are travelling in not-well-chartered territory, and it is likely that the rules should change in response to our experience. There is room for variance in interpreting the NOR rules, and some of the interpretations may be pathological. --- Charles Stewart 17:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I largely agree. Montalvo - You have been helpful in getting me to see why Carl has been driving people up a wall. However, you are twisting my words: The actor model is not known to physics, as opposed to "not in" physics. Feel free to document the controversy. Just realize that it must be done in an article on the actor model, and not an article on physics. --EMS | Talk 06:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fin

All of OR material has been removed from this article it is true, and if it is not deleted and its supporters wish to claim a pyrrhic victory for their efforts then I congratulate them. However this title of this article, in my opinion, remains an incubus for future mischief and it will remain on my watchlist indefinitely. DV8 2XL 20:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean that you are withdrawing your request to have the article deleted?--Carl Hewitt 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
No. The title is now misleading, since I see nothing in the body of the article relating to physics, quantum or otherwise, and I still believe it should go for the reason I stated above. DV8 2XL 22:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
There is reporting in the article on how published work depends crucially on physical indeterminacy. It is true that there is now no mention of "quantum". So the proposal has been made to rename the article by removing "quantum" from the title.--Carl Hewitt 22:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Reply to DV8 2XL: There is not a lot for me (or anybody else) to be happy about regarding the outcome of this AfD, even if, as it seems the case the article will be kept (under a different name) and in the end I voted to keep. The primary reason for my dissatisfaction is that an RfC would have been better suited to make specific proposals and suggestions to Hewitt on how to make this article and other articles better. Unless you are planning on banning Hewitt --bad idea, we are going to have to do this eventually. With an RfC Hewitt would be encouraged to be more willing to follow certain guidelines of cooperation. For example, one particularly infuriating characteristic about Hewitt's style is that he makes dozens of edits each one of which is miniscule -- it makes it very hard for other editors to see what he's done or where he's taking the article (I don't care about the strain on servers -- that at least gives Jimbo Wales something to do getting more resources). There are other observations I could make and in an appropriate context I would make them.--CSTAR 02:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I am always open to suggestions how to make articles better and certainly a RfC is better suited for this than an AfD. Also I apologize for the trouble that my using small edits has caused you. Have you tried using the compare selected versions capability on the history page to coalesce edits?--Carl Hewitt 07:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that our primary goals have been achieved no matter what happens. Beyond that, I am not certain of what to do with an editor who is obviously very much appreciated for his work in CS, but whose lack of knowledge and perspective in other areas makes him most unappreciated outside of CS. Maybe the RfC/RfA route is what is needed, and should be tried next time. As much as I hate to say it, I know that there will be a next time. Carl still seems to have no idea of what he is doing or why it infuriates people. --EMS | Talk 06:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Since I've participated extensively in past AfD's for articles authored by Carl Hewitt (confusingly, my initials are also CH!), however, I thought I'd take the time to add what I hope will be a helpful extended comment.
Carl, I think the basic issue with many of your Wikipedia articles is their lack of intellectual maturity. You have had a long career in a certain area of computer science, but it seems you want to branch out into physics in your retirement. Nothing wrong with that in principle, and your recent activity could be valuable as long as you are very careful to honestly and fairly judge the intellectual maturity of your speculations, and are thoughtful in which venues you chose to explain your ideas. Taking the time to try to familiarize yourself with the physics literature would also be wise. I think you also need to be more sensitive to possible "cultural differences" between theoretical physics and computer science regarding judgements of maturity. Remember that theoretical physics is a subject with a long and distinguished pedigree, while computer science is still comparatively young but appears to have developed significantly different time scales/criteria for publication.
I feel that your physics-related ideas are currently at a stage which are just barely sufficiently mature to perhaps be worth sharing in some form with others. They might merit discussion in speculative essays posted at your own website (perhaps you can set up also set up a blog there to make it easier for interested readers to comment). Wikipedia science articles should however focus on explaining well-established topics in science, such as time dilation, or much discussed speculations such as the cosmic censorship hypothesis. In all cases, articles should fairly and accurately describe the current status of the ideas under discussion. Sometimes this will be difficult or contentious (e.g. string theory evokes passionate debate), but in these cases the article can explain fairly and accurately the nature of an contemporary controversy within scientific circles.
More generally, I don't deny, of course, that speculations regarding connections between mathematical logic and fundamental physics have been much discussed for many decades in the physics literature and elsewhere. But what strikes me is the enormous breadth and variety of the ideas which are "out there"; it would be very difficult to find anyone who is sufficiently expert to provide a comprehensive review of this material, much less judge the relative merits of various speculations. So anyone attempting to discuss such issues should approach the task with humility and good judgement, and in particular, should avoid making strong claims unless one is really aware of (and ideally familiar with) all the relevant literature.
In this article, to judge from the title, you are nominally attempting to address a relatively tiny portion of this enormous literature. Your qualifications to discuss computer science aspects of your own actor model are not in dispute, but the rest of us might well wonder whether you are capable of doing so in an unbiased manner. This is particularly true because those of us with more physics/math backgrounds seem to agree that you don't seem to know very much about the relevant physics or math literature. I think the fact that so many users have been warning you that there is much you don't appear to know should induce you to pull back and move these speculations to your own website, where you should probably label them as preliminary. In any event, I urge you to voluntarily stop trying to use Wikipedia as some kind of venue for promoting highly speculative personal views, especially since some many here feel you that while you may know a great deal about some aspects of computer science, you don't yet know enough about physics to write usefully on such a vastly complex and subtle subject.
I hope you will take this to heart!---CH (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I do take it to heart! What we are concerned with in this article is a particular connection between the Actor model, mathematical logic, and physics; not trying to characterize all relationships between them! So the article could undoubtedly be better titled. Fortunately, the physics discussed in the article is relatively well defined, namely the physics of arbiters which have been extensively studied and for which there is a large published literature.--Carl Hewitt 22:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Before I wrote the above comments, I did look at the article and I did notice that you cited a lotta CS papers, mostly by yourself. It seems you are using these citations to support your contention that this article does not violate WP:NOR because it is allegedly based on a "large published literature". Do I really need to explain why I don't buy this argument? I note also (see "Physics or not?" above) that you are implicitly claiming to describe in this article a well-established interdisciplinary field involving ideas drawn from both physics and CS, but you cite only CS papers (as far as I can see). As far as I know, there is no discussion in the physics literature of your "actor model". Sometimes it seems like you are spending more time gaming the system here in the Wikipedia, than you are in working up your ideas to a more mature and better informed state.---CH (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Postscript: RfC

I entirely agree with what C.Hillman has written. I'd like to say that, assuming there is the is the likelihood of friction in the future, I think it is better to call the RfC now, when the air has somewhat cleared, than when a new incident has frayed tempers again. I think CSTAR is interested in this avenue (ie., an early RfC). I'd like to test the water here on this one: is there agreement that this is the best approach? --- Charles Stewart 16:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

To reiterate: Yes I agree an RfCis desirable, although it's not yet clear to me what this RfC should be about.--CSTAR 17:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I have a suggestion about that (I note again that my initials happen to be the same as Carl Hewitt's, so newcomers shouldn't confuse us). I propose an RFC on Carl as an example of how one user (who is surely sufficiently saavy to know what he is doing) is devoting great ingenuity and persistence to using Wikipedia in order to promote his own highly personal and speculative views, which most of us seem to agree do not appear to yet be sufficiently mature to warrant the amount of attention which he obviously thinks they deserve in this encyclopedia. Quite a few users with considerable expertise whose talents and knowledge should be devoted to higher callings, like writing new material on established technical topics of which they have expert knowledge, have (in my view) wasted quite a bit of time in discussions like this one. I think a fair summary of these discussions is that we have encouraged Carl to try to develop his ideas further, but we've also repeatedly asked him to voluntarily confine his proseletyzing for his speculations to a more appropriate venue, such as his own website or blog. This makes him, in my view---and I think of others here--- something of a problem user.---CH (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me just emphasize the problem as C. Hillman describes it in the area of physics. Carl seems to be appreciated in CS. I just wish that he would stay in CS and not use Wikipedia in promote is fairly unique views on physics. --EMS | Talk 03:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not proffer an opinion as to the wisdom or value of an RfC in this case, however I would ask those who wish to see this editor rehabilitated to note that each one of these incidences draws a wider number of people into the debate, and there will come a time when his antics will elicit a harsher response.
I also believe it is time to put this AfD out of its misery and for some admin to make a decision and let us all move on. DV8 2XL 18:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Would anybody object if I contacted Tony Sidaway as an admin who has had no part of this who I would trust to execute the closing of this debate quickly and properly. He won't conclude with a consensus to delete, but I can't think of an admin who would. --- Charles Stewart 18:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
There is a lot of ill-feeling going around CH's edits, and an RfC can hope to (i) clarify what other editors are upset about in CH's editing, and (ii) put together some rules of engagement that should avoid these conflicts. The RfC then is about avoiding similar conflicts in the future. Simply listing the pages where CH's edits have not observed core WP rules would be a good start, the RfC can then establish details by examining the most significant of these. --- Charles Stewart 18:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What should be the title of the article?

The question has arisen as to what the title of this article should be. The subject matter of the article is a particular relationship between the Actor model, mathematical logic, and physics: Indeterminacy in the physics of arbiters produces indeterminacy in Actor model computations such that they cannot be implemented using mathematical logic. Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you are wasting a lot of people's time with endless discussions like this one. You are an academic with an established reputation (in CS) and with institutional backing, so I feel that you should recognize that you have both the oportunity and the responsibility to polish your interdisciplinary ideas to the point where you can begin to publish some of your speculations in reputable non-CS journals. For example, by showing that you can use ideas from the actor model to solve some open problem which has been discussed in the physcis literature. This alone would not, in my view, immediately promote your ideas to the status of deserving encyclopedia articles here, since solving open problems is the bread and butter of ordinary science, but it would at least put them in the marketplace of ideas. Instead, I feel you are trying to circumvent peer review by posting articles here which describe your ideas as if they have already led to an established interdisciplinary field, which as far as I can see is absolutely not the case. This demeans the efforts of users like EMS, who do not have the institutional backing which you enjoy, but who are attempting to pursue the traditional path of peer reviewed publication. This process can be time consuming and frustrating, but I think is still, in the long run, the best path for science and indeed for your own intellectual legacy.
I am also disturbed by what I see as your marked tendency to game the system here in order to "justify" persistent abuse of the Wikipedia. If you devoted the same degree of persistence and ingenuity to working out your ideas properly, you might actually contribute something of interdisciplinary value, but if you persist in proseletyzing immature ideas here, you will only alienate individuals who might otherwise assist you in developing your ideas in directions which might one day turn out to be useful.---CH (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
The article reports on published work of long standing in Computer Science including the following:
  • Robert Kowalski Predicate Logic as Programming Language Memo 70, Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University. 1973.
  • Carl Hewitt and Henry Baker Laws for Communicating Parallel Processes IFIP-77, August 1977.
  • Henry Baker. Actor Systems for Real-Time Computation MIT EECS Doctoral Dissertation. January 1978.
  • Will Clinger. Foundations of Actor Semantics MIT Mathematics Doctoral Dissertation. June 1981.
  • Carl Hewitt. The Challenge of Open Systems Byte Magazine. April 1985. Reprinted in The foundation of artificial intelligence---a sourcebook Cambridge University Press. 1990.
  • Robert Kowalski. The limitation of logic Proceedings of the 1986 ACM 14th Annual Conference on Computer science.
  • Gul Agha. Actors: A Model of Concurrent Computation in Distributed Systems Doctoral Dissertation. MIT Press. 1986.
  • Ehud Shapiro (Editor). Concurrent Prolog MIT Press. 1987.
  • Robert Kowalski. The Early Years of Logic Programming Communications of the ACM. January 1988.
  • Ehud Shapiro. The family of concurrent logic programming languages ACM Computing Surveys. September 1989.
  • Carl Hewitt and Gul Agha. Guarded Horn clause languages: are they deductive and Logical? International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Ohmsha 1988. Tokyo. Also in Artificial Intelligence at MIT, Vol. 2. MIT Press 1991.
Regards,--Carl Hewitt 02:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no relationship to physics in the article, except for three occurences of the word physical which are not otherwise supported by the article. However, although I'm not changing my vote, I think there is a place for this article if all "physical" references are removed. Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
The above comment appears to be original research. Do you have any references to back it up?--Carl Hewitt 02:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Of course by the previous statement, I meant that the above comment in bold face by Arthur Rubin is original research.--Carl Hewitt 03:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Original research I think refers to the content of articles, not to the content of talk or other auxiliary pages. In any case, it's quite clear that Arthur Rubin's statement is original to the extent that it involves counting. We are allowed to count, even in articles, I think.--CSTAR 03:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I apologize, my previous remark was too sarcastic. As I see it, it's Hewitt alone against everybody else in this AfD (including me, although I have tried at times to mediate). That's a difficult situation in which to expect anybody to maintain a level of clear-headedness. Perhaps Hewitt should get advocate? I know I'm going to get plastered for making that suggestion "that's the last thing we need". But I don't like lynch mobs either.--CSTAR 03:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I see no need for you to apologize. Carl is asking to be "lynched". Let me know if you are going to do an RfC or RfA. It is time. --EMS | Talk 04:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
If Arthur Rubin wrote that opinion in the article space, it would be original research. In fact, the purpose on WP:NOR is to keep one man's otherwise undocumented opinions out af the article space. That in fact is how this AfD got started! However, in this context Authur's comment is a reasonable and on-topic part of this debate. --EMS | Talk 04:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Once again and from the article itself:
In concrete terms for Actor systems, typically we cannot observe the details by which the arrival order of messages for an Actor is determined. ... Instead of observing the internals of arbitration processes of Actor computations, we await outcomes.
If you are not concerned about the "internals", then you are not concerned about the physics! So I once again suggest Actor model and mathematical logic for a title, assuming that there is any good reason not to fold this material back into the actor model article itself at this point. --EMS | Talk 04:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually the article states:
The Actor model makes use of arbitration for determining which message is next in the arrival ordering of an Actor that is sent multiple messages concurrently. For example Arbiters can be used in the implementation of the arrival ordering of an Actor which can give rise to physical indeterminacy in the arrival order. Therefore mathematical logic can not implement concurrent computation in open systems because of the impossibility of deducing arrival orderings since they are indeterminate. Note that although mathematical logic cannot implement general concurrency it can implement some special cases of current computation, e.g., sequential computation and some kinds of parallel computation including the lambda calculus.
In concrete terms for Actor systems, typically we cannot observe the details by which the arrival order of messages for an Actor is determined. Attempting to do so affects the results and can even push the indeterminacy elsewhere. e.g., see metastability in electronics and arbiters. Instead of observing the internals of arbitration processes of Actor computations, we await outcomes. Physical indeterminacy in arbiters produces indeterminacy in Actors. The reason that we await outcomes is that we have no alternative because of indeterminacy.
Regards,--Carl Hewitt 04:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
??? So what? IMO, what I quoted is the operative parts of the above. I agree that
[p]hysical indeterminacy in arbiters produces indeterminacy in Actors
but since the actor model is not concerned with the internals, this is just an incidental point. --EMS | Talk 04:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that this discussion need be conducted on AfD, since the move can be accomplished by the regular means. The article's talk page seems more appropriate. I think we should regard the AfD discussion period as over, and await for someone to close the discussion. --- Charles Stewart 14:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

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.
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/Actor_model,_mathematical_logic,_and_quantum_physics&oldid=2089821"