See here for my opinion on this page. --Gro-Tsen 11:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - The following are the articles which I have use as a direct source for the material; they are all from K. Carmody:

• Circular and hyperbolic quaternions, octonions, and sedenions, Appl. Math. Comput. 28 (1988) 47–72. doi:10.1016/0096-3003(88)90133-6
• Circular and hyperbolic quaternions, octonions, and sedenions— further results, Appl. Math. Comput. 84 (1997) 27–48. doi:10.1016/S0096-3003(96)00051-3
• Elliptic complex numbers: The Musèan hypernumber w, [1]
• Rose numbers: The Musèan hypernumbers p and q, [2]
• Cassinoid numbers: The Musèan hypernumber m, [3]

I find them clear, and do not contain personal belief or agenda other than the subject matter; I have inquired and received much clarification from K. Carmody, have dug through many of C. Musès' original papers and confirmed that they are represented correctly. I value the work of Mr. Carmody in the above articles very much, as it extracts valuable information from Musès' papers, and puts them on so much better grounds. Whatever I found to be "working" as an arithmetic, I then put on Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, I do understand a concern with referring to an individual's web site for reference, because it is dynamic unreviewed (self-managed) content. If we were to move the reference to his website into a "further reading" section, this would remove all content from the online papers from the filter which I'd personally applied when selecting content for this article (2 independent publications, plus me understanding it). This would affect the current sections "1.3 Elliptic complex numbers (w arithmetic)" through "1.5 Cassinoid numbers (m numbers)". If a consensus would be reached that this material, as we have it in its current form, does not qualify for an encyclopedic entry, I would regretfully accept. I would understand the desire of having this information published in a static, reviewed form (a journal) before presenting it here.

But I must repeat my imnpression that the articles are well written, and there are certain key findings that Mr. Carmody solidifies in his two papers that were published in Appl. Math. Computation: The logarithm of , the real powers of , the multiplicative modulus of (conic) sedenions, and polar forms of certain numbers; to name a few. To me, these findings are proven and sound beyond doubt.

As for the other articles, if the consensus here were that they are not founded well enough for reference, I would try solicit mathematicians to publish in journals first, and then come back; because I believe they work. I've been trying to convince people to publish about it since a while now, and I'll keep trying. I find numbers built on a multiplicative modulus interesting because they may qualify for a description of quantum mechanics.

Thanks, Jens

In my point of view rose numbers and cassinoid numbers are nonsense, pure rubbish. The deletion of such paragraphs could be a good thing.

As Gro-Tsen has said, this article is nonsense, and best ignored. Paul Matthews 12:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete this article, by comparison it makes the rest of wikipedia look credible.

Is there a reason this doesn't just redirect to Hypercomplex number? Factitious 06:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking this question. This page is about a "hypernumber" concept envisioned by C. Musès - the term "hypernumber" is at times used synonymously with "hypercomplex number" by people close to Kantor & Solodovnikov's definition thereof. There is some overlap, but both programs have differences. By the way, there is at least one more "hypernumber" program by M. Burgin which is yet different. At this point, I picture the "hypercomplex number" article as parent article that links to certain numbers beyond the reals. From there, you should find the current article referenced properly. Earlier this year I was in the process of bringing off-maintstream number related articles into a better relation, filling blanks and details, but that's obviously not happening anytime soon here from my end (in order to restore credibility, I'm entirely focusing on commercial publications at this point, either from my end or by bugging others to do so; in a few years there should be enough substance to disseminate the remaining information properly to the Wiki readership; an unfortunate delay, apparently unavoidable). What you mention was related one of my action items, to somehow make it clear that the current "hypernumber" article should really be "Musean hypernumber" or something like this. Any good idea? Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mostly a list of brief descriptions of types of numbers that are already discussed elsewhere. It's very similar to the hypercomplex number article, but with less context. I think there should, at minimum, be a definition of what these hypernumbers are. There's no explanation here of what statements like "Epsilon numbers are assigned the 3rd level in the hypernumbers program" and "A special case of hypernumber arithmetic are conic sedenions" actually mean. Why not start by making a stub at Musean hypernumber that simply states what it means for something to be a Musean hypernumber, instead of just listing off a bunch of number systems that have their own articles already? Factitious 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, definitions are exactly the problem: The guy (Musès) who brought them up pretty much threw them out, without much more explanation. I've dug through many of his articles, without much further insight as to what actually defines a hypernumber level. Left in the dark about it, I stripped the material I had down to where I had two independent publications about certain numbers, and where I find useful and workable what's written there. I'm coming from the physics side, so it's more important to me what arithmetical laws a certain system exposes - and less important how this can actually be properly defined. Hopefully that explains the article in the state it currently is in, and the need for "experts" to remove concerns one may have - ideally, at least. From w arithmetic on, I don't believe this is discussed anywhere else in Wiki. I'm working with a small group, online and offline, on establishing defining relations for certain Musean "levels", but this may likely take a few years. Until then I've pretty much resigned as far as Wiki is concerned. ... Thanks for your suggestion, Jens Koeplinger 01:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article on Charles Musès. The idea is that information here that isn't already covered at hypercomplex number should be merged in there, along with information on his other beliefs. See Talk:Charles Musès for more about this. Factitious 10:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of content from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypernumber&oldid=78200756 has been deleted - where has it been moved to?

The deletion of content by Factitious are unacceptable to me, and so is the mix between the number concept and religion. I care less what Musès' religious beliefs were when it comes to mathematics. I believe that one should not simply go into Wikipedia and delete content, even if it is obscure or poorly written. In the case of what Factitious deleted, the content is mostly from formally published sources, so it's far from obscure. I acknowledge that my article is not up to standards acceptable by mathematicians, but that's a general problem with what Musès wrote and how he wrote it. To me, that's more a need to improve on it, and not to delete it. Quote from Factitious' user page (27 Nov 2006): "I generally prefer for low-quality articles to be improved rather than deleted. This results in a greater number of high-quality articles for Wikipedia. I also feel that obscure subjects should be covered, provided that articles about them are useful, informative, and neutral." Dito. I've therefore created a new page, Musean hypernumber, and moved the entire deleted content there. The "expert" tag remains, due to the need to update the article. I am not happy about the procedure of going into articles and deleting them, in order to provoke a response. Well, I responded, but I'm still not happy about it. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 02:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]