Talk:Bibhorr formula

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Who is Bibhorr

Who is this "Bibhorr"? Seems to be some self-promotional spammer online. There is no mention of this formula in the serious mathematical literature. Equinox ◑ 20:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can find him here bragging that his formula is the most important in human history (I'm serious!): [1]. This entry needs a real investigation. Equinox ◑ 20:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the attesting quotations of use of the term? Why has the RFV been closed (@Kiwima)? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also debunking here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bibhorr_formula. Equinox ◑ 21:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess I was premature there. There seemed a sufficient variety of authors - the phrase "Bibhorr formula" does refer to a specific formula, regardless of whether the formula is valid or useful (which I doubt). The grandiosity of the language is pretty off-putting I agree. Kiwima (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima: Is it right that you can find only one qualifying quotation, the one at Citations:Bibhorr formula? If so, can you please reopen WT:RFVE or close it as RFV failed, as appropriate? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can find another qualifying quotation in a publication by Bibhorr, but could not find a date for it, so I did not format it up as a cite. Google books also indicates that the term is used four times in Bibhorr's formula], but they are hidden behind a paywall. I have already reopened the RFV. Kiwima (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, users in the WP deletion discussion point out that the formula doesn't even work. - -sche (discuss) 15:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it personally a bit, using it to compute the angle (and compare to atan/arctan) and yes, it doesn't give exact results and at best gives an approximation. It seems to be off anywhere from 0 to around 0.0014 radians, with no clearly evident pattern to how badly it is off from the actual values (compared to atan), and certainly an approximation like this could not replace the actual trigonometric functions. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFV discussion: March–May 2018

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first three books at Google Books look promising. Khemehekis (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed

Please see Talk:Bibhorr formula. This might be a spammy hoax. Does the formula exist, written down? What does it state? Equinox ◑ 21:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the formula does exist, written down, found in several of the books, but using symbols I don't know how to typeset. I have my doubts about its validity, but I figured there was a sufficient number of different authors for all those books. Kiwima (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I find in google books:"Bibhorr formula" are publications that I fear are not independent. The first four items have titles starting with "BIBHORR FORMULA:", which I find suspect. They also seem to use similar bragging style. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for what it states, there is W:File:Bibhorr-formula.png showing the formula, I guess; it may eventually get deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks as if someone's been gaming the system. Khemehekis (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, perhaps not. Personally, I would rather get rid of this one under RFD than RFV, but whatever. Kiwima (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Invoking the RFV-relevant requirement of independence, I assess the quotations to be not independent, and therefore support deletion. While voting "Delete" is unusual in RFV, here it is my assessment supporting a particular RFV outcome. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bibhorr_formula&oldid=51217397"