/sci/ - Science & Math

Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

>>12400185
I see that you are looking at the picture I posted but not the paper I made the thread about:
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
You should clarify whether you're looking at the picture or the paper because they rely on different iterations of the framework. Furthermore, I have already removed the problematic language "All non-zero real numbers have a multiplicative inverse" from the current version quick paper, pic related, which you can find here:
>Quick Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0236
It should have said "All non-zero real numbers in the neighborhood of the origin have a multiplicative inverse" but I changed the whole proof and didn't even include that.

If you look in the paper which is a non-quick 140 pages, then I think you will find the formal language which is neglected in support of quickness in the "quick" paper. I advise you that the "quick" paper is not the correct paper to nitpick since all I have proved there is that RH is false if the proposition is true. However, the resolution to your question about 0=INF following from the multiplicative absorption of INF_HAT was that the algebra of INF_HAT has to be such that INF_HAT+0 is an undefined operation along with INF*0. This disallows an intermediate step in your derivation of a contradiction. However, in the more formal, non-quick treatment which doesn't revolve around an unproven proposition, INF_HAT does not have the property of multiplicative absorption. I think your main issue is that you are focusing on looking at the picture of an earlier draft of the quick paper but you're not reading the long formal paper which does not depend on an unproven proposition and reflects the current iteration of my framework.

Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
https://gofile.io/d/q1RoYc

>

Recent analysis has uncovered a broad swath of rarely considered real numbers called real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity. Here we extend the catalog of the rudimentary analytical properties of all real numbers by defining a set of fractional distance functions on the real number line and studying their behavior. The main results of are (1) to prove with modest axioms that some real numbers are greater than any natural number, (2) to develop a technique for taking a limit at infinity via the ordinary Cauchy definition reliant on the classical epsilon-delta formalism, and (3) to demonstrate an infinite number of non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function in the neighborhood of infinity. We define numbers in the neighborhood of infinity as Cartesian products of Cauchy equivalence classes of rationals. We axiomatize the arithmetic of such numbers, prove all the operations are well-defined, and then make comparisons to the similar axioms of a complete ordered field. After developing the many underling foundations, we present a basis for a topology.

>use it do something that can only be done if it were solved
I assume "show nontrivial zeros off the critical line" is not good enough for what you're talking about then?

And I can't even get my stupid RH solution on arXiv, much less the measly $1M.

>>12136984
I do know that a function has to have a range. It is you who fails to understand (or more likely fully understands) that the a line being equipped with a function does not depend on the identity of the range, so the definition of R is not circular because it does not depend on the range need not necessarily be R in any case.

I know very well what AxA->A means. Furthermore, Lang called it a "mapping onto itself" and never clarified that the mapping attached to a monoid was also "onto itself." I didn't look it in depth since two years ago, but I believe there is a GIANT HOLE in Lang's definition of a monoid. Everyone gives him a pass on it, and instead they attack my work which has no holes in it. Pic related, Lang didn't say that the law of composition for G is "onto itself." If you can find where Lang says a monoid is closed, then please point it out. I don't recall seeing it. Here's the PDF:
https://gofile.io/d/E4xCsA

>>12107346
Why dabble in a solved problem?

>>12089816
I do it wit maximal rigor here:
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
I do it with minimal rigor in pic related.

>>12082890
If there were a bunch of one page proofs, wouldn't the problem be listed as solved? Or do you do you think tptb would ship the solver of the problem off to Antarctica and censor him?

>>12078098