/sci/ - Science & Math

https://youtu.be/GaD8qEWJglY

Who here is a scientist?
And why do things matter?

>>14958087
>You won't post the number, because you can't.
Fucktard, you post the number "one third" in a form that you think is ok. You can't post the infinite decimal. If you post something with "dot dot dot" in it, I have a continued fraction form of pi. If you post "one over three" then I refer back to pi as "C over D."

There are ways to make the make point you're trying to make without being stupid but you aren't doing that.

According to Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis [https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237], the Riemann hypothesis is false due to hat infinity.

>>12253823
The distribution of primes [math]p\in\mathbb{R}[/math] is the exact same as the distribution of [math](\widehat\infty-p)\in\mathbb{R}[/math] and now we have new arithmetic tools
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
for studying the latter. The new tools could shed new light on the distribution of such numbers and that would tell us about the distribution of the primes since it is the same distribution. Did you not notice that or were being mindlessly detractive?

>>12090014
wrong

>cognitive behavioural therapy
This gets its acronym CBT from "cock and ball torture." Yes, it works.

No one is mentioning that now all terrorists have easy access to Grade AAA+ biological weapon. It's literally laying on the ground outside and they only have to cough on the people they want to kill and have the jihad agent say, "Oops," before walking off.

You'd think they would have mentioned that by now, but they didn't.

>>11103450
Here's two tenured prefessional physicists saying that it could have spin-1 and also giving the reason why, and there you are being an anonymous coward and making a claim for the fiftieth time in a row without giving any supporting evidence.

>The Need to Fairly Confront Spin-1 for the New Higgs-like Particle
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2288

>Nima Arkani-Hamed: The Inevitability of Physical Laws: Why the Higgs Has to Exist [1:01:55]
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wRCW7bspUg

Not only does Nima plainly explain at [1:01:55] that spin-1 is perfectly fine, he explains it right in the middle of his talk about the constraining physics of the W and Z particles, you fucking miserable retard. Either support your claim with evidence or shut the fuck up. Your unsupported screeching is retarded.

You might as well say,"It can be spin-1 because then I would be sad," If you said that at least your rhetoric would have some pathos in it instead of the no-ethos, no-logos, no-pathos rhetoric you're vomiting onto this thread now.

>>11002781
>Why are we like this
Why do you guys send you money and daughters to those who steal my semen and sell it after I became homeless due to not having any money after quitting the job whose salary I couldn't even convert into the affections of a passably ok-looking prostitute? Do you think maybe it's because you're completely evil and everything you do is wrong?

>>10679038
>you have to gain a reputation
this is the most anti-science thing ever written. Your research should stand on its merits when they delete the names of the authors. The name of the author of a paper has jack shit to do with anything,

>>10477418

I see when the Clay Institute offered that $1M to Perelman they had to issue a waiver because he did not publish in a peer-reviewed journal. I disproved RH two years ago this month, and since I published on viXra, Clay would have to use the ~EXACT~ same waiver they gave Perelman if they wanted to give me the money now that my solution has gone unchallenged for two years.
>On The Riemann Zeta Function
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

>>10232055
>Reading papers from journals written by leaders in a scientific field will give you orders of magnitude more understanding of whatever you're studying
wrong and stupid

>>10207755
>>10207788
Not only are they equivalent to the accepted definitions: they are them!!! I recall my professor's words in my first day of undergrad real analysis, "What is a real number?" After a few guesses he said, "A real number is a cut in the real number line! That's it! Nothing more! A real number is a cut in the real number line and nothing more!" He was delighted to expose the simplicity of the foundations of of real analysis from his cushy tenured position at a major USA research university. I remember it well and, while /sci/ will tell you otherwise, I seriously doubt that professor is the only one on Earth using the definition.

>>10151430
>accidentally

>>10115866
>Why is the universe so young?
Where did this anomalous and arbitrary seeming increment of time, 14 billion years, come from?
good question

>>10100954
>there's nothing preventing a number to be both in the neighborhood of 0 and also in the neighborhood of infinity
Your comment is completely stupid. Consider a number in the neighborhood of infinity, as defined: infinity minus some positive finite number. If there was some number X in the neighborhood of the origin such that
infinity - b = X

then we could obtain via the additive inverse of numbers in the neighborhood of the origin
X + b = infinity

which is a totally stupid statement that infinity is the sum of two finite numbers. Therefore, there is no number in the neighborhood of infinity which is equal to a number in the neighborhood of the origin.

Do you even think before you write? If you're going to troll, why not troll the retarded party? You stupid detractors are rapidly approaching the point where you will have to resort to claims like, "You didn't define the letters of the alphabet you use to write your sentences."

What about if the government agrees to loan you the money to learn how to do something productive but then refuses to reward your productivity?

>>9928861
Where did my right not to have you guys slice me with knives and stab me with picks go? You never had the right, you were wrong the whole time.

>>9912675
If you weren't tarded, you would say which number system doesn't include infinity. Also if you weren't tarded, that number system would be the one whose numbers I used in my analysis
>complex analysis is wrong
>sqrt(-1) isn't a number

>>9778743
>inflammatory
arXiv rejected this paper too:
On The Riemann Zeta Function
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

Since I'm detecting an arXiv employee, know that when I round you all up to kill your families, I am going to cite a similar predicate about what is not acceptable to me. I hate you, and I will kill you all. You chose the wrong side of history and the penalty is death.