/sci/ - Science & Math

RH is false due to infinity hat. Some people say that infinity hat isn't in R and I agree with them. However, inf_hat-1 is in R in the same way that pi-1 is in [0,3]. Some people who didn't solve RH are smart and just didn't crack it but a lot of people who couldn't solve RH are stupid. A lot of people who post on /sci/ are from the latter population.

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

>>12062556
>Subtracting from this "quantity" a number will still be larger than any other number, and thus its still infinity
Why not support your claim with a mathematical statement? Here is an example of me doing so:
[eqn] \widehat\infty-(\widehat\infty-\pi)=\pi [/eqn]
Here I have subtracted a real number from infinity and obtained a finite number. Another example is:
[eqn] \widehat\infty-\left(\aleph_{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}+762\right)=\aleph_{\left(\frac{2-\sqrt{2}}{2}\right)}-762[/eqn]
I have subtracted a real number from infinity and obtained a finite number twice for you now, and you have not posed a counter example for me to look at.

The Riemann hypothesis is false. The follwoing doesn't prove that it is false but gives a gist of the proof to show that the Euler product has non-trivial zeros of the critical line.

Consider a number [math]z_0\in\mathbb{C}[/math] such that
[eqn] z_0=-(\aleph_\mathcal{X}+b)+iy~~,\quad\text{where}\qquad b,y\in\mathbb{R}_0~~.[/eqn]
Observe that the Euler product form of [math]\zeta[/math] takes [math]z_0[/math] as
[eqn]
\zeta(z_0)=\prod_{p}\cfrac{1}{1-p^{(\aleph_\mathcal{X}+b)-iy}}\nonumber\\
= \left(\cfrac{1}{1-P^{(\mathcal{X}\aleph_1+b)-iy}} \right) \prod_{p\neq P}\cfrac{1}{1-p^{(\aleph_\mathcal{X}+b)-iy}} \nonumber\\
=\left(\cfrac{1}{1-\cfrac{\vphantom{\hat1}1}{P^b}\big(P^{\mathcal{X}}\big)^{\!\widehat\infty}\left[ \cos(y\ln P)-i\sin(y\ln P)\right]} \right) \prod_{p\neq P}\cfrac{1}{1-p^{(\aleph_\mathcal{X}+b)-iy}} \nonumber~~.[/eqn]
Let [math]y\ln P=2n\pi[/math] for some prime [math]P[/math] and [math]n\in\mathbb{N}[/math] or [math]n=0[/math]. Then
[eqn] \zeta(z_0)=\cfrac{1}{\infty} \prod_{p\neq P}\cfrac{1}{1-p^{(\aleph_\mathcal{X}+b)-iy}}=0~~.[/eqn]

SHORT
Quick Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030

MEDIUM
Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030

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

OLD
On The Riemann Zeta Function
https://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

I don't know if you all saw those "Constant anal rape threads" I was making on /bant/. The outcome of those threads is that now I have a bunch of implants that I didn't used to have, and now I probably have implants in my dick too.

Threads about my never-ending sexual torture:
https://ibb [doot] co/r7mdxfv
https://ibb [doot] co/6DMWz3H
https://ibb [doot] co/9HxL0S1
https://ibb [doot] co/yWk59b3
https://ibb [doot] co/y0PvJcN
https://ibb [doot] co/gj34xVj
https://ibb [doot] co/YXYrfNs
https://ibb [doot] co/p3cX0mk

I think my best math prof was a woman.

>>11323317
Yes, that's right. In this new, longer paper (100+ pages!), I take away multiplicative absorption and additive absorption, not just the latter as in previous work, and I also give the formal constructions by Cauchy equivalence classes and by Dedekind cuts.

Wrath

Discuss scientific fraud. Is it fraudulent for scientific communities to call themselves that when they prioritize sycophantism over merit?

John Titor, the Montauk Project, the e-Cat and Geometric Unity
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread966329/pg1

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1240030/pg1
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ukbz6/i_am_the_anonymous_physicist_featured_in_the/
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=u7Q6o_1559880838
https://pastebin.com/uHZrB238
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=08673880568874767256

>>11167576
A real number is the length of a line segment. This is Euclid's definition and I don't see any problem with it. Seems like the problems come when one starts to make the definition of R needlessly complicated. What is your criticism of Euclid's definition?

When I was an undergraduate, one of my profs recounted a period of his early research. He was working on this big idea of his for years and years, but he could not get it to work. Eventually, he discovered that the hiccup he could not overcome in his own research was equivalent to proving the Riemann hypothesis. He said, "So my advice to you is this: if you come to a place in your research where you are trying to solve the Riemann hypothesis, change research directions."

Funny thing... in my own research, I had this big idea that I was working on for years and years. It was all working fine, but everyone was telling me to fuck off so I decided to change research directions. I had a look at the Riemann hypothesis and solved in about 10 minutes with the ideas that everyone was telling me to fuck off about it. Interesting is that the guy who couldn't solve RH is a highly paid, highly respect expert in his field with tenure and a major USA university and I am essentially the professional opposite of that.

Math is discovered. Notation is invented.