A class of big (p,q)-Appell polynomials and their associated difference equations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present paper, we introduce and investigate the big (p,q)-Appell polynomials. We prove an equivalance theorem satisfied by the big (p, q)-Appell polynomials. As a special case of the big (p,q)- Appell polynomials, we present the corresponding equivalence theorem, recurrence relation and difference equation for the big q-Appell polynomials. We also present the equivalence theorem, recurrence relation and differential equation for the usual Appell polynomials. Moreover, for the big (p; q)-Bernoulli polynomials and the big (p; q)-Euler polynomials, we obtain recurrence relations and difference equations. In the special case when p = 1, we obtain recurrence relations and difference equations which are satisfied by the big q-Bernoulli polynomials and the big q-Euler polynomials. In the case when p = 1 and q ? 1-, the big (p,q)-Appell polynomials reduce to the usual Appell polynomials. Therefore, the recurrence relation and the difference equation obtained for the big (p; q)-Appell polynomials coincide with the recurrence relation and differential equation satisfied by the usual Appell polynomials. In the last section, we have chosen to also point out some obvious connections between the (p; q)-analysis and the classical q-analysis, which would show rather clearly that, in most cases, the transition from a known q-result to the corresponding (p,q)-result is fairly straightforward.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it