Deletion of Pseudomathematics (2nd nomination)

Comment: it is not clear from the article what the intended topic is. I can claim that 1 + 1 = 10 and I'm not wrong, just using binary; similarly, if I claim that it is possible to construct a square with the same area as a given circle, I am not violating the theorems around squaring the circle but instead am going beyond Euclidean geometry or finite algorithms. This is very different from actually doing maths wrong, such as accepting the definition of pi (geometrically or as a power series) and then declaring that it equals 25/8. And this is also very different from misapplication of mathematics—if I claim that the weak law of large numbers disproves Pascal's Wager then I'm misunderstanding mathematical theory or choosing a poor model of the situation, but the end result is not exactly an incorrect piece of maths. {{pb}} This distinction is important because while both topics could be notable as their own articles (or perhaps better, as lists), it is not a good idea to conflate them. The article as it stands does not strike me as useful or correct—it makes the astounding claim that people attempting to trisect an angle are pseudomathematicians! (I hate to imagine what the author would think about proof by contradiction)—and so I'm tempted to argue for |TNT'ing it, as it is at best not clearly defined in scope and at worst spreading outright misinformation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)