/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10957837
Hey,Tooky Timesand. You're old friend Math Anon here again. I see you're still having fun with your claims that RH is false, but we both know that I proved it to be True.
I have to say though, the new cleaned up version of your paper looks much nicer.
However, should I go through it and point out some errors to people? I don't really have time for your sand at the moment, but maybe I should get them started?
Anyways, like I've said before, why don't you focus on redefining and expanding the field of limits and hyper-reals? It seems to fit your theories better and that you could expand the field.
Shucks, if I eventually get time, I'd even help.
Love, Math Anon.

Oh and p.s. to get people started.
Why do you introduce an asymmetry between (1) and (2) right from the start? Either line one should see b>0 also, and/or line 2 should see b>=0. So right there you're leaving a possible point open that could affect your outcome.

Line (3) says x/y = 0 but it should say approximately or approaches or maybe infinitesimal, but certainly not 0.

>>10591202
>RH is solved
I know, I solved it.
>Clay lists RH as unsolved
That's what they get for not hanging out in /sci. Silly Clay.

That Timesand guy is really something though. He thinks that there are infinite non trivial solutions, yet can't provide one example. What a joker, I tell ya. He just loves to get people to waste time arguing over fallacies.

>>10554437
I posted a proof of it 2-3 months ago. The thread was active for about 3 days. I'm sure you could find it in the archive if you're interested.

Say someone did stumble across a Proof to the Riemann Hypothesis, what should that person do next?

What websites or journals should the person contact? Which should they avoid? Where should the person look for peer review? Is /sci a good place for preliminary review? How about math stack exchange, or xkcd?

What other considerations would you take if it were you?