/sci/ - Science & Math

The main problem with this entire theory every time i see it posted, is that OP can't describe his infinity as a proper mathematical object and deduce his claims from the definition. You can't just say that you have an object that has all the properties of another object except one property, and then use that if you don't have some kind of explicit representation of that concept in basic mathematics.
Positive infinity can be easily described as a follows. For every integer N there exists a B such that N < B. using this very crude definition you can get the analytic properties of most of infinities ideas, such as additive absorption. say you have B-N2 where N2 is some integer, you can preform a basic operation on the equation and get the following N+N2 < B and since N2 is an integer is can be simplified as anotheri nteger total so you're back to N < B but you can also try the same but in inverse so you have N < B+N2, N-N2 < B N-N2 is an integer so N < B therefore you can conclude that B-2N=B+2N for any integer in existence so you have additive absorption. The problem with OPs post is his schizo self can't come up with a proper basic definition that gives rise to the properties of his hat infinity, and I doubt that he could. But if there is a way to achive all the analytical properties of infinity without additive absorption using a proper definition grounded in the numbers that the Riemann hypothesis is relevant to, than i doubt it would even constitute a non trivial zero as his hat infinity would most likely not be part of the complex numbers. OP i recommend thinking about what actually defines what you work with rather than just assuming it can exist. for example imaginary numbers are easily defined using the real numbers by the equation (-1)^(1/2) but your hat infinity has no such definition.