Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Class automorphism: Difference between revisions

Class automorphism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since 2009. May be a WP:BADFORK of automorphism.4meter4 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Might also be OR. I only taught as high as 7th grade math and whatever was needed for AP Bio, so I don’t know 100% for sure, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article presents a perfectly meaningful definition. All the content seems to be true. It is probably not original research, in the sense that if you presented any of the factual statements to a professional mathematician and said “was this known before 2006?” I think the answer would be “yes of course”. Maps of this kind certainly come up in modern mathematics. However, I have never seen the name “class automorphism” applied to them; searching MathSciNet, zbMATH, Google Scholar, and arXiv finds 0 instances of thise phrase being used in this sense, and I am skeptical that they have ever been systematically studied. I don’t think WP:BADFORK is relevant; if this were a fork of anything, it would be of Group automorphism. —JBL (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and probably rename. This is usually called a “class preserving automorphism” and it has been studied at least since 1911 by Burnside, then others later. Here is the groupprops page on the property. Here is a recent survey. I think this topic is probably notable in the sense of being studied by several different groups over the years, but I would not be opposed to a merge to a relevant target article. —{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: Since you seem to understand this better than most of us, would you mind adding that source and fact checking what we have? I would be willing to change my vote if we clearly had content that is A. Not WP:OR and B. WP:Verifiable to WP:RS.4meter4 (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The groupprops page was written by the same person as our article; it’s a shame they added sources and gave it the correct title in only one of the two places :/. (I had been searching for the string “class automorphism”.) —JBL (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]