Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Multiple cross products

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 redirect to Vector_triple_product. LFaraone 18:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple cross products

Template:La – (View log)

(Template:Find sources)

A statement the cross product is not associative then a discussion of the consequences of that. But this product is already given at Cross product and Triple product, with the latter in particular already covering the product, its properties and expression using Levi-Civita symbols. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• The article in its present form is weak. It has some hints that something could be said beyond what those other articles say (e.g. the comment about exterior algebra), but so far they're only hints. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vector triple product. (I don't see how what is here now can be salvaged, but if someone else sees a way to transform the "hints" into useful non-OR material and merge it into Triple product, fine.)  --Lambiam 21:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Everything here is already amply covered by other articles. The identity involving the Kronecker delta is just Lagrange's formula for the vector triple product, made more obscure by the imposition of indices. Luckily this identity already appears in the article Levi-Civita symbol, although the relationship to Langrange's formula should probably be mentioned. (It's actually a special case of the Pfaffian identity $ϵ\otimes {ϵ}^{\mathrm{♯}}=n!{\mathrm{Id}}_{{\wedge }^{n}V}$ which, unfortunately, is only covered in a very questionable way in our article on the epsilon tensor.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  Do you have a specific objection against redirecting this?  --Lambiam 18:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  No objection to redirecting, if "multiple triple product" is a likely search term. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to the triple product. It is a notable topic in math. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  This vote misses the point. We already have the triple product, where this is covered much better. The epsilon identities are covered in Levi-Civita symbol. Is there anything else worth keeping/merging? Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2010 (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.