Talk:Uncertainty theory (Liu)

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 November 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Uncertainty space[edit]

The Article says, "An uncertain set is a set-valued function on an uncertainty space." But it doesn't define what an uncertainty space is. - dcljr (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is nonsense[edit]

This article is pure nonsense. The 'uncertainty theory' of Liu is a controversial theory which contains mathematical flaws and is not well accepted by msinstream mathematicians. This article does not speak about these flaws and can mislead readers into thinking these assertions actually are correct. They are not.

This article should be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.39.90 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source for this being "controversial" or not accepted? It is definitely not very well-known or widely-used, but I know of no objections to it, per se. If this article is on a fringe theory, then we run into issues regarding WP:FRINGE, in which case I agree that the article should be deleted until a more sensitive version can be made – but I know of no evidence for this. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance?[edit]

Does this article belong on Wikipedia? Rybu (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article on this topic definitely belongs on Wikipedia, since the topic is covered by many peer-reviewed academic publications. This article, as it stands, has some issues, however. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensibility[edit]

Regardless of the current AfD, does WP really need articles that consist of nothing but equations? Isn't that what textbooks are for? andy (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Without context this is just a bunch of equations. Fences&Windows 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD again?[edit]

I'm thinking of taking this back to AfD and I'd welcome some opinions first.

It emerged in the original AfD that Liu is probably not the creator of uncertainty theory per se but rather of an uncertainty theory. Although it's hard to find much about this on the web - and Liu is certainly extremely prominent there - I came across the following two references fairly soon and there may well be a lot more:

http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//essays/uncert/intrisk.htm - see the last paragraph

http://minh.haduong.com/files/HaDuong-2002-UncertaintyTheoryAndComplexSystemScenarioAnalysis.pdf - no mention of Liu

The current article is actually about Uncertainty Theory (Liu) rather than Uncertainty Theories in Economics, Uncertainty Theories in Risk Assessment and so on. IMHO it should be stripped of the maths and made a section of a much fuller article - or it should be deleted as misleading.

andy (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should just be moved to "Uncertainty theory (Liu)", since it's not clear that the other theories with similar names have anything to do with it. This theory defines an "uncertainty measure", where the uncertainty measure of a proposition would be something different from its probability, whereas other theories are probably just talking about a broader concept of uncertainty. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have performed the move. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of article[edit]

Given its structure, organization and content, I am afraid that this article does not belong on Wikipedia. It appears more like a collection of abstract definitions and unrelated equations written in notebook style. Even for a mathematician, I do not think that there is much helpful information in understanding this obscure theory. LoveAtFirstWrite (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have to agree. I stumbled upon this page looking for Uncertainty theory in Social Sciences and was boggled by this page. I don't know how to start the deletion process, but think someone should. CESchreyer (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)CESchreyer[reply]

The topic does meet the notability criteria, and the article has a useful bibliography, which I hope to be able to use to improve the content, which I agree is way too abstract right now. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]