/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12071775
>doing analysis in the neighbourhood of infinity all along.
I also don't agree. The neighborhood of infinity only has numbers in it with greater than zero fractional distance with respect to infinity. Nobody was doing analysis with numbers in the intermediate numbers in the 20th century and not in the 21st until I invented this new notation.

>no meaningfull difference between limx+b∞f(x) and f(∞^−b) in any context that makes sense.
I think the hat is a big difference in the context that makes perfect sense in the paper I wrote.

>No you didn't. We have been very clear with that.
Clay specifically says they care about solutions which aren't the negative even integers. I proved my claim by posting the picture of what Clay says RH is. "You" being clear about it has nothing to do with the perfect clarity in Clay's paper.

>reasonable interpretation implies Clay cares about the solutions at the neighbourhood of 0
Here I eternally (((BTFO))) you: It was obvious that they don't care about the negative even integers and they still wrote that explicitly, pic rel. Why would they write the negative even integers which are ten million times more obviously out of scope than the neighborhood of infinity, but not make another explicit statement saying that they don't care about the neighborhood of infinity? You are BTFOed! The reasonable interpretation is that if they excluded the negative even integers explicitly, they would have excluded any other out-of-scope zeros explicitly as well.

>No it doesn't.
J says there are an infinite number of primes less than any positive number in the neighborhood of infinity. This is the correct behavior. Furthermore, who knows what kind of tricks might be pulled off by considering numbers of the form p'=(INFHAT-p) with p prime. These guys have the same distribution as the regular primes, but we have NEW ARITHMETIC TOOLS for these kind of numbers. Ergo, you have no reason to discount possible applications a priori