# Is this theorem a new discovery? [closed]

I think I have discovered a new theorem in mathematics.I would like to know whether it's really a discovery. The gist of the discovery is given below. Further the complete paper is available at,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79568882/Mathematics-new-discovery

Those who're familiar with "calculus of finite differences" may find some resemblance. However this result is different as "calculus of finite difference" cannot be used for arithmetic progression .

Gist of the Theorem.

The squares of the consecutive elements of an arithmetic progression are in a quadratic series with a specific numerical relation between the common difference of the arithmetic progression and the second difference of the quadratic series , which is Second difference = 2 . square of the common difference of the arithmetic progression.

Further, this is true for any power of the elements of an arithmetic progression such that, **n th difference = n factorial . n th power of the common difference of the arithmetic progression.

-
This is a straightforward corollary of basic results about finite differences, and I am sure it's been known in some form for centuries. – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 30 '12 at 5:53
– Zev Chonoles Jan 30 '12 at 5:55
Might be for the best if you first sent your papers to a more subtle peer review before claiming the discovery of a "new theorem". – Henry Shearman Jan 30 '12 at 6:16
Isn't this a bit harsh? I think it's nice to see people exploring mathematics by themselves, so I have upvoted this question. @Dhanesh: This is quite familiar and many mathematicians have independently discovered it. I believe I've even seen some papers by Euler where he mentions this. Nowadays, it takes a lot of work to discover something really original, as there are A LOT of mathematicians, and they all have their ideas. (And the simple ideas come to mind much more quickly.) So, I wish you a lot of fun exploring mathematics and learning new stuff, that's what really matters. =) – Dejan Govc Jan 30 '12 at 16:15
-18, seriously? Am I missing something or is that really how we think about an honest attempt at mathematical creativity...? o.O – Myself Jan 30 '12 at 23:25