Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinha Conjecture Prize


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sinha Conjecture Prize

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A supposed generalization of the Fermat's Last Theorem, devised by a non-mathematician. The proposition is a complete nonsense; in particular: A Google search has found nothing relevant, except copies of the Wikipedia article. (Note: There exists a completely unrelated T.N.Sinha's conjecture.) Delete as non-notable crackpottery. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In x^a + y^b = z^c, if x and y have a common factor, then the whole sum (hence, z^c; hence, z) must be divisible by it - z can't be coprime with either x or y! (I am going to yield the prize to 223.27.210.130, who discovered it before me.) Likewise, when x and y are coprime, z can't have a common factor with either. Suppose z has a common factor with y; then the equation can be re-written as z^c-y^b=x^a; the left side is divisible by the common factor, that means that so is the right side, and so is x - contradicting the assumption that x and y are coprime!
 * In a section which I have removed to the talk page, the last sentence reads: "It is a new, and of course an unobserved, aspect of positive integers, which has satisfied the relation a^n + b^n = c^n, when n > 2." Pardon me? The recently proven Fermat's Last Theorem says that no such positive integers exist.
 * Delete, aside from the mathematical details, I do not see that the notability of the prize has been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia purposes, the correctness of the mathematics is not what we need to look at. It's whether that mathematics has been published and passed peer review: a process that is supposed to happen outwith Wikipedia and first.  Clearly, this has not.  Our no original research policy mandates that we're not in the business of checking things that the world of mathematics has not yet checked.  Looking at earlier revisions of the article, I see that the inventor of this conjecture has (it is claimed) solved Beal's conjecture but turned down the money on altruistic grounds, turned ideas of thermal efficiency on their heads, and is designing "a low cost thermonuclear reactor".  Looking at the article's talk page, I see from the OTRS permission notice that the source of all of this information is the purported inventor himself, whose WWW site was copied and pasted into this article.  And that's the only source, cited or that I have turned up. Before Wikipedia can report mathematics, said mathematics must have gone through the usual, and proper, processes of formal publication and peer review.  Before Wikipedia can state that this person is a cross between Reed Richards and Tony Stark, we need independent and reliable sources saying so.  The only person saying these things about this person is this person himself, and we all know the error of believing that.  There's a reason that the Primary Notability Criterion excludes autobiographical sources.  Delete. Uncle G (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources for coverage in mathematical circles nor in the press. The only real source for information is this primary source, of which the article is largely an (OTRS-approved) copy. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No non-primary sources, no assertion or evidence of notability. - Running On Brains (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are no WP:RS thus fails WP:GNG.  →TSU tp* 10:36, 28 May 2012 (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.