/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15437002
>The object C which that PDF refers to has the property that every element can be written as x = a + bi with |a|, |b| < n for some natural number n.
It doesn't. You're referring to C having the Archimedean property which wasn't bastardized into something other than what Euclid said it was until many decades or maybe a century after Riemann published his hypothesis. I refer you to my earlier post: >>15436055. You are stupid and I undermined the castle of your argument before you even started building it. What you're saying is the Archimedes property using a condition for natural numbers wasn't invented until the 20th century. Back in Riemann's day, scholars still studied The Elements in their primary education. Riemann's program of Riemannian geometry as an extension of Euclidean geometry emphasizes the well known fact that Riemann's program was based on Euclid's program. When the modern statement of the Archimedes property got adopted, they thought it was equivalent to Euclid but it actually truncates the possibility of a neighborhood of infinity. The way Euclid made the statement, the neighborhood of infinity is allowed and you are trying to conjure an anachronism by saying that Riemann was bound by the restatement of the Archimedes property that didn't exist until after he was dead. In fact, there was an error in mathematics when they said that your statement is the Archimedes property.

If you intend to continue insisting that Riemann used Rudin's statement of the Archimedes property rather than Euclid's please cite the material Section 6.3: >>15436055. I have already addressed every point you might raise. Furthermore, your preoccupation with the Archimedes property rather than the prime number application that makes RH interesting shows that you are a troll.
>It's like they're saying they don't want to know about the prime number application if the analysis of the question involves numbers that are larger than any natural number.

>>12316696
If one of you has an idea about what I wrote and you want to raise a point about it, then cite an article, e.g.: Axiom X.Y.Z, or GTFO.

>>12061713
>equation 3 shows these being four vectors
Not it doesn't. Equaton 3 defines them as sets of points.

>I said tensors act on space and dual spaces (or are tensor products of, different interpretations)
I know what tensors are and what they do. I explicitly state that the same symbols are used to label the manifolds and the vector spaces, pic related. Even though I said the symbols refer to two things, you are are choosing to ignore what I wrote.

Overall, since your criticism is totally disjointed and you are not using quotes or green text in a way that is easy to read, and since I have BTFOed you 10 times, and since the sentence you cited as gibberish is a perfectly formed sentence with a subject, predicate, and an object, I am going to ignore you. If you can use greentext or quotes in the usual way, and if you provide citations to the parts of the paper you're referring to, then I will continue to entertain your inquiry.

The truth about the criticism od my early short paper here:
>peabrained professional glanced at it
>didn't even read all the sentences in order
>didn't take the time to carefully study it
>dismissed it as garbage
>wrote a report saying that they studied it and found it to be garbage
>signed the report
>got proven wrong by me
>because I am one million times better at physics than they are
>(even if they are more expert in making computations)
>now are too proud
>much too proud
>and their hubris too strong
>and their ego too big
>to say that they wrote their early reports about how it was garbage without even reading it all the sentences in order
true story

Have you all seen my treatise regarding planar geometry, pic related?

>>11791242
Sometimes they, "they" being niggers in high places, say that when you are not certain of the location of something, then it means you think it is not real. Thinking the things around you are not real is a symptom of depersonalization. However, not being sure of the location of a thing is not a symptom of depersonalization even though there are niggers out there whose highest hope is that they can undermine a victory which was won thousands of years before they were born by adding a word into someone's personnel file.

Geometric Unity is my theory

>The Truth About Geometric Unity
>https://vixra.org/abs/1307.0075