Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballu Equation


 * 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 delete. Tone 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ballu Equation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recent article that is sourced only by preprints. The equation is well known but not under this name D.Lazard (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

StolanAce (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I made this article and will not feel bad if this article is deleted by backing up with reliable sources.

D.Lazard mentioned two things

1) Recent article that is sourced only by preprints.

My solution: ''Within 3 months I can make my research available in journal if that is standard. And I believe this should not be major concern even without being published in journal as long as you find it new. Also, I have added other journal and book citation''

2)The equation is well known but not under this name.

My request: ''Please backup your statement with reliable source that exactly matches the Ballu equation and not the similar equations. ''

Why

Leonhard Euler has only substituted variable value of x as pi in well know Taylor series(1685-1731) or Madhava series(1340-1425){equation is e^(ix) = cos (x) + isin (x)} and presented to the world. We all know that variable value already includes the value of pi but it looks different and specific. Considering that difference as standard to not to fall in plagiarism list, I haven't found any equation that is same as Ballu equation.

My request is to support me if Ballu equation is not found elsewhere. StolanAce (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC) — StolanAce (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Wikipedia's policies forbid "original research", and that term is construed as meaning research that has not appeared in a refereed source. After it has appeared in a refereed journal, it may appear in Wikipedia articles that cite one or more such journals. If the article calls it the "Ballu equation", some refereed source should be cited that calls it that. See WP:OR. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: No same equation found to put Ballu equation into plagiarism list. And if it is not under plagiarism list than why to remove it. StolanAce (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please I request D.Lazard or anyone to support his statement "The equation is well known but not under this name" with reliable source that matches the same equation.

157.49.172.158 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC) — 157.49.172.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: There are many similar equations but not same
 * Delete No credible claim of notability, no reliable sources, precious little clarity in the writing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have stroken "well known" in my rationale for deletion. I should have written "either wrong or well known". Because of the number of specialists of combinatorics who work since centuries on this kind of identities, it is impossible that such a simple formula can be both true and unknown. If by surprise I am wrong, we must wait that the referee of an established journal of combinatorics validates the formula and accept the paper for publication. D.Lazard (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. As Donald Knuth wrote, Binomial coefficients satisfy literally thousands of identities, and for centuries their amazing properties have been continually explored. In fact, there are so many relations present that when someone finds a new identity, not many people get excited about it any more, except the discoverer. (The Art of Computer Programming, §1.2.6.) The burden of proof is on the individual who claims to have something new to say, and the place to do that is during formal peer review at mathematical journals, not here. WP:NOR. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There may be many individuals stating to delete this but it would be nice to see a next comment with clear source to weight the talks.StolanAce (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You've already said "keep" once. Repeating "keep" in boldface is considered poor etiquette. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment My user name looks like I steal but I don't steal. A girl stole my Ace heart and broke it. Mr. D.Lazard and  Mr. XOR'easter, can I please ask you to take back the deletion sentence and favor me until you come across the same equation and then escalate the deletion process where I will only delete the inappropriate contents after seeing the source.StolanAce (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have to provide a source that says it already existed under another name. You &mdash; or anyone else wishing the article to be kept &mdash; have to provide sources that indicate it is a topic discussed, under the name "Ballu equation", in peer-reviewed mathematics journals, by people other than the inventor. This is nothing personal; it is the standard we as a community apply to all topics, because that is the kind of reference Wikipedia is trying to provide. See the No Original Research policy, the General Notability Guideline, and the guideline on using secondary sources. I will also note that multiple accounts suddenly starting to edit on this topic and no other will likely raise concerns about sock-puppetry. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. It doesn't matter whether this is a truly original discovery (unlikely) or already known under some other name; either way, we can't keep an article like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks to be a restatement of the finite-difference version of the fact that the nth derivative of $$x^n$$ is $$n!$$. Apropos math.stackexchange discussions: . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, well known and foundational (n'th difference of x^n is n factorial), too simple to be named after single person. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And that is not the Ballu equation. You took it wrongly. Ballu equation is about stating the equation to remain unity. Also, reference provided by XOR'easter the power is n-k which implies the power keeps reducing by each term of summation series. It is different by many steps than what you have mentioned in the reference.
 * I can still use my previous example to state the standards to identify equation to be different. Madhava series(1340-1425){equation is e^(ix) = cos (x) + isin (x)} where Euler substituted just a pi in variable x and nothing more which makes it different.StolanAce (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's well known in either form. That the n'th difference and n'th derivative of (x^n / n!) is 1 is foundational in combinatorics, calculus, algebra. Dividing both sides of an equation on polynomials by a constant is not considered a serious difference and certainly not something that gives the divided equation a new name.
 * Also, you say it is your result and you want to use Wikipedia to share with the world, but that is the function of a blog, not an encyclopedia. See WP:BLOG and WP:NOTBLOG and WP:SOAP. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable Source IndrXiv is powered and link with Center for Open Science which links tracks all the major priprints like arXiv, OSF Preprints, bioRxiv and more. The date is reliable. Also, it is available on researchgate.
 * Non Plagiarism' I request all to back their statements on this topic with a reliable source to put under plagiarism. As, I see all the comments are made on this topic are assumptions of Plagiarism of the invention.StolanAce (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Except you, nobody talk of plagiarism. It is common in mathematics that several people prove independently the same result. This does not imply any plagiarism. About reliable sources, Wikipedia has a specific concept of reliable source (see WP:Reliable sources). Publications in preprint sites are not considered as reliable source for Wikipedia. Also, being new and reliably sourced is not sufficient for being included in Wikipedia. Notability is also required (see WP:Notability). Clearly "Ballu equation" is not a notable term as it does not appear in any published paper or book. D.Lazard (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete Agree with D. Lazard's rationale and other comments above---this is too easy to prove to be previously unknown if it had useful applications; I also note the applications given in the article seem a bit whimsical (at least as they are currently formulated). jraimbau (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "this is too easy to prove to be previously unknown" Again using the same example, Euler equation is hundred times simpler than this equation, and just one step deep or ahead from Taylor equation(1685-1731) or Madhava equation(1340-1425). So, wherever you mentioned applies to Euler equation but it wont happen not it should happen to my equation.
 * I think that is backwards. Tables (triangles) of differences for polynomial sequences are things that can be, and sometimes are, taught to children with no difficulty.   Your result is that the triangle, applied to an n'th degree polynomial, ends in a particular easy to state way, and kids can convince themselves that is so.  This is part of the basic yoga of how to take sums of k'th powers, discrete "differentiation" and "integration" and so on.
 * The relation between complex exponentials and geometry is much, much more subtle than this. The reason the version of this from India is not part of the Western terminology is that nobody in the West knew about it until hundreds of years after Euler and De Moivre. The formula specialized to x=pi is famous for aesthetic reasons, not because making that substitution once having the general formula was considered as a big innovation. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

'''IMPORTANT NOTE TO WIKIPEDIA: Keep this article as this article is providing the information about an unique and simple equation to the world. This is not available elsewhere and this article is providing something new and different to the world'''
 * I found this equation recently, The day anyone found that this was discovered before May 2018, They can change the name of the equation as they want on everywhere including Wikipedia but let this information be on Wikipedia by some or the other name.
 * Many people who will say some or the other things on this equation as its new which are easily defendable, but I can't keep replying to everyone. No one is with a solid statement which I cant defend.
 * I have published it on May 2018 on google scholar and I found no one as of now with same equation.
 * This equation is new and different with some interesting facts where so many people are interested and shocked with this equation.StolanAce (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be listening to what everyone else here has been saying. You've taken something that is known (see this book from 1961 or this book from 1858), and you've presented it in a way that makes it hard to understand what you're talking about. Your enthusiasm for mathematics is commendable, but you would do well to find a more suitable outlet for it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article is a dumpster fire that is nothing but original research. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per nom. It is either OR or not notable, in either case it does not belong on WP.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR; insufficient, sustained coverage in third-party, independent eliable sources. ——  Serial  17:59, 19 July 2020 (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.