/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10129951
They have the same problem as all those science magazines and other places. They have a moderation team of brainlets who can do only elementary school math at best, so if you don't have a Name or don't refer to someone who have a Name, they reject you. And this happens because they afraid their reputation will suffer.
What the wold really needs is a place were people can post their "crazy" math ideas. With tags and good search.

>by Johnathan Tooker
this guy doesn't know highschool math so i really doubt he can do theoretical physic

>>10130640
>they afraid their reputation will suffer.
They should worry about the suffering I will inflict on their children because of my disdain for this stupid email that they sent me.

>>10130806
I know it probably seems as unlikely to arXiv as it does to you that I will track you down later and inflict brutal and malicious sufferings on you (or whoever pointed your bot pointer at me), but I will do it. Don't say you didn't know. You should weigh the upside of the moment of satisfaction you get from writing this against the prolonged torture that I am promising you.

>>10131170
no Jon, it's because infinity-hat is patent garbage and you can't site your vixra article (the limits of sin and cos one) where it's constructed--which btw you recently had to revise considerably because 4chan anons were able to point out numerous contradictions

obviously if you want this to get on arxiv you gotta get that one fixed* first and get that on arxiv first

*but it's impossible to fix

>>10131181
>no Jon
using this kind of language is going to get you rounded up and sent to hell.

>you can't site your vixra article
pic related you are wrong.

>revise considerably
are you talking about this completely different paper that I wrote: Negation of the Riemann Hypothesis?

infinity hat is useless shit, and theorem 1.2 is wrong.
No need to invent stupid things, just calculate the zeta function for z=inf, all its terms = 0, so wwow, riemann btfo

>>10131286
>theorem 1.2 is wrong.
Please identify the error

> for z=inf, all its terms = 0
z=inf is not in the domain of zeta though. The domain is complex numbers where Z is a complex number if and only iff
Z = x + i y

and (x,y) are both real numbers.

>thm 1.2
How many iterations of, "They said he's wrong but later he showed they were actually wrong," do we have to go through before my opinion becomes more trustworthy in your minds than their opinion? You'd think it would be less than 100 but IS NOT COMRADE!!!

>>10131508

>>10131498
>Please identify the error
People have identified the error time and again now. If you keep refusing to listen, that is your own problem.

Aware a newfag, who is this schizo?

>>10131588
>People have identified the error time and again now.
Which error are you referring to? I am unaware of these identifications that you speak of.

>>10131633
I'm not going to repeat it again. Read back up on the mountains of old threads you have ignored.

>>10131645
>I'm not going to repeat it again
You can't repeat it again because you haven't repeated it.
You couldn't repeat it because it didn't exist to begin with.

>>10131656
You mean you ignored it the last time. And that is exactly why I'm not going to bother repeating it.

>>10131662
I don't mean that. I mean, "These errors to which you refer don't exist."

>>10131619
bump

>>10131498
inf-hat isnt a real number either
and if its a real number, with a finite number of digits, then theorem 1.2 is wrong

>>10132095
by suppressing additive absorption, I make the numbers in the neighborhood of infinity unequal to hat inf

>>10132114
I would strongly consider abandoning this notation. It was shown clearly a few weeks ago that you always have a contradiction with your definitions and theorems. Without giving specific intervals or subsets, your neighborhoods are useless.

>>10132170
It was claimed but not shown. Just now, you have claimed but not shown that it was shown. Where is your proof?

>definition of real number depends on definition of real number line
>definition of real number line is never given

Nothing else even needs to be addressed.

>>10132229
real number line is a line called "real." A line is already defined.

>>10132229
one of his posts in a thread a few days ago was literally "a line is the real number line if I say it is"
pretty funny

This guy is like that Hitler quote about arguing with Jews though. Some autistic anon will spend 300 posts slowly, tortuously backing him into a corner and then he will post his new thread and pretend he doesn't remember anything.

>>10132267
Tell me, does your line include infinitessimals?

>>10129951
>Theorem 1.3. The Riemann hypothesis is false.

that's not how theorems work you dumb fuck

Just stop interacting with him. He's literally mentally ill and nothing you say will change his delusions. The only thing that can change is his incentive to post here if he gets no attention.

>>10132290
What definition of an infinitesimal are you using?

>>10133451
>not how theorems work
What standard of the working of a theorem are you holding that theorem to?

>>10132212
I don't have the thread, but it was explained by multiple people including me. Namely, a neighborhood is a subset or interval. Without explicitly stating the neighborhood I can arbitrarily say that 1 is both in the neighborhood of 0 and in the neighborhood of infinity without violating your definitions. Yet, you claimed without proof that the set of all x in neighborhood of infinity intersect neighborhood of 0 is empty. A contradiction.

>>10133760
>I can arbitrarily say that 1 is both in the neighborhood of 0 and in the neighborhood of infinity without violating your definitions.
No you can't. What "b" satisfies
1 = (inf - b) ?

>>10133771
Irrelevant since that theorem comes after the definition I take issue with.

>>10133771
>without violating your definitions.
>>10133831
>the definition I take issue with.
choose one.
also, explain how you can put one in the neighborhood of infinity. One is smaller than an arbitrarily large number and the radius of the neighborhood of the origin is an arbitrarily large number. Therefore, the number one must be in the neighborhood of the origin.

>Irrelevant since that theorem comes after the definition
What theorem?

>>10133831
You can't reasonably pick and choose a subset of the definitions and say, "These are not consistent." You have to evaluate the consistency of the framework defined by all of the definitions.

>>10133849
1 is an arbitrarily large number.
Like I said, a neighborhood is a subset. Therefore I can say [1,inf) and now 1 is in the neighborhood of infinity. This statement does not contradict your definitions.
>>10133852
I didnt. I used all of his definitions and told him they are not well defined and that as a consequence, his theorems that follow do not hold.

>>10132172
Must be nice for Johnny boy to have people reviewing his paper so in depth.
It's like your very own virtual PI.
A shame he's schizophrenic and won't learn from any of it

>>10133849
x=inf-hat -b is in the neighborhood of infinity
its x-1 in that neighborhood too? and x-2? x-3? etc

Also, you were talking the other day about the definition of real numbers that Riemann used when published his paper with the hipotesis for w/e reason. Maybe you should consider reading the original paper that Riemann wrote, you could find interesting some things he wrote, like:

"This equation now gives the value of the function ζ(s) for all complex numbers s and shows that this function is one-valued and finite for all finite values of s with the exception of 1, and also that it is zero if s
is equal to a negative even integer.

>>10132172
this is really neat, wish there were more flowcharts like it, just going through every single possibility and consequence of a proof and debunking them one by one, or just highlithing neat corolaries that come from it.

>>10133997
One is an arbitrary number.
arbitrary != arbitrarily large

Please explain to waht steps you have taken not to implement the definition of "arbitrarily large" in a way that has the same meaning as another freedom of choice: "arbitrary." Please explain the differences in your mind, or else tell us that you have used "arbitrary" and "arbitrarily large" as to equal conditions.

>>10134063
>>10134063
link?

>>10129951
>he actually tried submitting to the arxiv
lol I thought this was all an elaborate prank but you really are mentally ill

>>10134044
>>10134403
I fucking had to make it like that because I could never pin down exactly what he claimed to have said.

>>10134823
>I fucking had to make it like that because I could never pin down exactly what he claimed to have said.

>>10129951
It's not always downhill. It's like when a chemical reaction happens and there's the transition state that's higher in energy, but the products are low energy. Like how life is complex and ordered but only because we make our environment and the solutions our cells thrive on more random.

>>10132172
anyone has a source for this dispriof in the flowchart? or a tl;dr?

>>10134581
https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/ezeta.pdf

Anyways, just try to do the sumation with your inf-hat -b number. Even assuming that your theorem 1.2 is correct, making the 2nd term and all the following ones disappear, the first term of the summation would be 1/1^(inf-hat -b). 1 multiplied by itself inf-hat -b times should be 1. So, the z function of inf-hat -b should be 1.

You are wrong Jon. The z function is perfectly defined for R>1. The result tends to 1 the bigger the number is used.

>>10135730
Does anyone notice how my detractors constantly say, "You're wrong for reason X," without actually showing it, and instead merely claiming it, and then when I write it out it shows that what they said was completely stupid?

I mean, how fucking stupid are you? You are catastrophically stupid but even then, what is the scale of the catastrophe implied by you feeble-mindedness? It is so immense, it is difficult for me to comprehend.

>>10134044
I don't really understand why people like arguing with him so much, personally.
It's mildly amusing for a bit but people have been painstakingly trying to explain to him why obviously nonsensical claims are wrong for months on end, with zero headway. You'd think they'd get bored eventually.

Just like they keep adding my name 500 times into the posts that don't really need it, when I drop their children into boiling water and then hand them back to them for consolation while the outer layer of flesh sloughs off, I wonder what they will say:
>I don't like this Jon.
>WHY GOD, WHY?!?!
The latter I expect.

>>10135910
sorry buddy but we're all incels here, you'll have to find somebody else to boil

>>10135884
if nobody ever showed it then why did you have to change your paper and add this nonsense “delay additive absorption as long as possible” nonsense?

>>10135918
Your parents don't have kids?

>>10135923
sure, but I don't think my mom comes to /sci/ and calls you names a bunch of times

>>10135920
>if nobody ever showed it
What is this "it" you refer to?

I changed from "cancel altogether" to "delay indefinitely" so that it would be clear that infinity and hat infinity are the same number, and hopefully to encourage people to stop referring to "infinity hat" as if it was something other than infinity with a hat on it.

Someone did show a corner case in the limit definition of infinity where the suppressed additive absorption leads to a contradiction. By using the specific word "delay" instead of "cancel" I avert the contradiction by making it patently obvious that we can take the hat off infinity when we need to. I thought this was already implied, but it is better to write math in terms of what is patently obvious and I have improved my definitions based on this construction criticism I received.

If you look back at v1 of my sine and cosine paper, even Theorem 1 was obviously wrong. However, due to some helpful person's constructive criticism I was able to change a word to avoid the error. Therefore, please discern between fixable and unfixable contradictions when you talk about people showing contradictions in my work. A contradiction that can be fixed with a word is more properly called an error or an erratum than a contradiction.

For total clarity, however, please note that no one has cited an unfixable error, or even an error that took more than five minutes to fix.

>>10135927
>thinking this matters
>being this new

>>10135948
ok, but boiling my mom's kids is still not the same as boiling my kids
besides you're just threatening to boil me at that point. would be simpler to just say that

>>10135884
I dont see how all that nonsense contradicts what i said.
I am stupid, so immensely stupid that if you put that as a real number on the zeta function it will still give 1+a very small amount. Even if my stupidity grows to the infinite, the z will only get closer and closer to 1, not less. Who knows, maybe if we input your stupidity-hat -b on the zeta function it actually goes to 0.

Also, its funny because you choose what posts to answer, and wich parts of them, like when you ignored the flowchart that shows how wrong you are on so many levels, or when you ignore the original paper from Riemann.

>>10135730
>https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/ezeta.pdf
Haha, tried looking at this paper. Going from the second equation to the third Riemann writes, "one first sees that," but I didn't see it. I guess they are using capital Pi for the Gamma function? Even then, I did not see what he did there. Not that I tried so hard, I guess I would have to look up the Gamma function.

>not defining real number line
What is this line? Does it include infinitessimals greater than zero but smaller than the inverse of any natural number?

>>10136346
>I dont see how all that nonsense contradicts what i said.
You said all the terms after the first term vanish. I showed that you will need to show it because what you claimed does not happen trivially.

>>10136346
>maybe if we input your stupidity-hat -b on the zeta function it actually goes to 0.
this is the most likely thing

>>10136346
>ignored the flowchart
You notice that I don't ignore precise statements or mathematical principles though, right?

>you ignore the original paper
I noticed that Riemann did not feel the need to define real numbers in his paper. I think the reason he did not feel the need to do that is because they all learned in kindergarten that a real number is a cut in the real number line. In fact, when Dedekind was studying cuts during the work that led to a certain species of cut being named after him, I think that was the follow on effort after he learned in kindergarten that real numbers are cuts in the real number line.

>>10136719
will dedekind cuts be the last nail in Jon's coffin? stay tuned!!!

>>10136708
>What is this line?
pic, from new paper:
http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1811.0180v1.pdf

>Does it include infinitessimals
Define two copies of the line. Let one have infinitesimals and let other not have them. Please criticize the properties of these two lines. What is implied by the existence or non-existence that motivated you solicit such a definition?

>>10136723

>>10136730
i'm sure you're so happy about your riemann meme. riemann wasn't that great, and history means shit. modern math has you BTFO'd for eternity

>>10136727
That paper doesn't say what the line is at all. It just calls it the real number line, while giving the definition of what a real number is, no less.

>What is implied by the existence or non-existence that motivated you solicit such a definition?
Well, since you just admitted that the line can have infinitessimals or not based off choice, you're admitting that you don't have a unique definition of the real number line, or real numbers.

>>10136736
Two equivalent definitions are allowed and if you show that they are not equivalent then each is unique. If you show a problem with one, then the real line is the other.

>>10136752
lol

>>10136752
poopy poopy in your pants
poopy poopy makes you dance
brown and smelly and oh so sweet
big poopy slide down to your feet
mommy look i made big poopy
she pat on head and give a rupee

>>10135311
I made the flowchart. I also wrote a disproof in paper form, but Jon said he apparently didn't say what I thought he said so I made the flowchart so I could handle multiple interpretations of what he said.
What exactly do you want to know?

>>10136766
>What is a good analogy to help teach this?
The main point about this person paper and flow chart is that they claim real numbers in the neighborhood of are not real numbers. I have proven several times that they are real numbers. To rebut my proofs, usually they say I have to use the Dedekind definition from 1872 for any analysis of Riemann's hypothesis from 1859.

>>10136780
>The main point about this person paper and flow chart is that they claim real numbers in the neighborhood of are not real numbers.

Read the beginning of the flowchart. It clearly states that it is agnostic as tonwhat is and isn't a real number. Instead the main flaw is that h's lack of additive absorption is incompatible with 1/h = 0 using the definition of division used by every single person ever.

>>10136791
>using the definition of division used by every single person ever.
I would be surprised if I was the first person in the history of the universe to divide by a number that doesn't have a multiplicative inverse. However, I was also surprised to learn that I was the first person in the history of the universe to suppress the additive absorption of infinity so it could well be!

>>10136799
What does your division mean, then? Or is it another thing that has multiple possible meanings? And when one is shown not to work then you'll claim it was actually another definition?

>>10136780
if you're so hot on sticking to Riemann's original paper, why do you contradict him when he says the product formula only holds when Re(s) > 1?

>>10136806
>What does your division mean, then?
It's a composition operation that obeys a composition law. Sometimes they don't define this composition law because you can get a similar thing from the multiplicative composition law involving a multiplicative inverse, but I have not defined it that way and, in general, division is a separate composition from multiplication.

>>10136810
The convergence of the formula for the zeros I found is irrelevant for the same reason the convergence is irrelevant at the trivial zeros that all have Re(z)<1. Who cares what the convergence is if it's exactly calculable? Indeed, it probably wouldn't take me very many minutes to look up the definition of convergence and show that every sum or product which is exactly calculable and equal to a real number converges to that number. Does anyone dispute that if a sum/product is equal to a real number then it also converges to that number? If so, please make a good argument which I can rebut.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some people in the future call the zeros I found "the other trivial zeros" or "the trivial zeros in the neighborhood of infinity," or something like that. Certainly they are a lot less complicated than the people who were looking for them expected them to be.

>>10136983
How about you tell us what properties division actually has?

>>10136983
>The convergence of the formula for the zeros I found is irrelevant
Riemann would disagree, considering that he explicitly defines zeta to equal that product _when they both converge_.

>>10137002
I see your point there. What formula do they use for the trivial zeros? I thought it was one of the two simple ones but now I see it is obviously not.

>>10136991
See Thm 1.2 in OP pic

>>10137040
this is the functional equation Riemann uses for the analytic continuation of zeta past Re(s) < 1. Only this formula is valid in that region.

>>10137040
Theorem 1.2 is clearly not enough to define division uniquely.

>>10137040
Also, where does equation 1.3 come from if your division is not the same as multiplication by the inverse?

>>10137047
Is that formula the same as pic?

>>10137057
It defines it for the only case I use it in. What else would like to see?

>>10137069
it is, by chance, the same for numbers that multiplicative inverses.

>>10137084
You never showed that ZY had a multiplicative inverse at all. You only showed that Z had a multiplicative inverse.

>>10137090
Nor did I need to. If the quotient is one then the two numbers are equal. Equivalently, X has an inverse so bring it down to the other denominator. Then
1 / ZY = 1 / X

if and only if
ZY = X

>>10137098
>If the quotient is one then the two numbers are equal
Prove it from your definitions.

>>10137084
It is not the same formula. To be specific, you can check yourself if you like that it fails to give zeta(-1) = -1/12, which is a rather well-known meme value.
You can start from that function instead of the series if you wish, but you still need to perform analytic continuation, and you will end up exactly back at what Riemann wrote.

>>10137106
>Equivalently, X has an inverse so bring it down to the other denominator.
Why would I need to do that?

>>10137110

Because you stated it as a fact?

>>10137110
The integrand on the left is zero. What is the definition of the Pi function?

>>10137115
Pi(z) = Gamma(z+1). It's just archaic notation. I assume Riemann uses it because Gauss invented it and Gauss was Riemann's PhD advisor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function#Pi_function

>>10137114
Does the theorem depend on it? NO

>>10137126
How about you put the actual justification in the paper, then? Instead of giving it as justification when asked and then not proving it? Doesn't that seem like a good idea?

For which real numbers a and b will addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division defined?

>>10137130
Is it difficult for you to see what my "if and only if" statement is true? Are you saying that what I wrote isn't true? Do you disagree with what I have written:
X / ZY =1 <==> X = ZY ?

>>10137142
Why would I care about this? Why do you? I defined all the operations that appear in the paper. Title of the paper isn't "Composition laws for numbers"

>>10137144
>Do you disagree with what I have written:
X / ZY =1 <==> X = ZY ?
I don't believe you have proven it. If it is true, you need to prove it from your definitions. Because I can certainly think of a line where this does not hold.

>>10137150
Do you believe it's not true?

>>10137155
It's obviously not true in general.

>>10137158
The fact that it's true in the theorem is sufficient for my purposes.

>>10137165
If X / ZY = 1, does that also mean that X * 1/ ZY = 1? Think about this before answering.

Jon how many zeroes does [math]\exp(x)[/math] have?

>>10137121
You seem very smart and helpful, thanks. Riemann's formula gives me 0/0 which neither confirms nor denies. Do you have a link to the formal definition of a convergent sum or product? I will attempt to demonstrate convergence in the neighborhood of infinity.

>>10137168
yes. Are you about to ignore that the proof was by contradiction and
X / ZY != 1 ?

>>10137171
This question is totally stupid since you have not defined the domain of your function.

>>10137178
Okay, so you're saying that X / ZY = 1 = X * 1 / ZY. Good. Okay that's great. We can now prove something quite marvelous

So you're saying we have X * 1 / ZY = 1 if and only if X = ZY. So let's choose Z = 1, X = some number in the neighborhood of infinity, and Y = X. Since Z = 1, then Z Y = Y. Kind of bland so far. Now here comes the marvelous part. Are you ready for this? 1 / Z Y = 1 / Y, and, wait, hold on, wait, there's more. You see, X * 1/Y = 1 means that Y is the multiplicative inverse of 1. That's pretty marvelous. You see, we've now proven that all numbers in your number system have multiplicative inverses! Thanks to you, we've made great strides.

>>10137180
In the EXTENDED reals then

>>10137189
>X = some number in the neighborhood of infinity,
no, X is in the nbhd of the origin. check the theorem.

>>10137178
>Are you about to ignore that the proof was by contradiction and
>X / ZY != 1 ?
yup, this is what you did. the proof showed there was no such X, Y, Z

>>10137193
seems like it has one zero at minus infinity and an infinite number of other ones in the nbhd of minus infinity

>>10137210
I asked you if X / ZY =1 <==> X = ZY was true, and you said yes. You gave no caveats at all when I asked you.

>>10137223
X was defined before you asked. We were talking about Thm 1.2

>>10129951
>negation of the riemann hypothesis
>not of sufficient interest
What does it take to get these guys interested?

>>10137232
I was asking about the math to justify theorem 1.2, and you kept saying that everything you hadn't defined held without proof.

So let me ask you one more thing: what is the norm of infinity minus b?

>>10137233
i think they'll be real interested when i take my vengeance on them: those at the very heart of the cabal's hand: the arXiv staff

>>10137235
my first guess is infinity. usually the norm gets rid of any hats inside the norm bars

>>10137242
How can it be a guess? Your proof depends on it having a value.

One last remark, actually.

>>10137147
>Why would I care about this? Why do you? I defined all the operations that appear in the paper. Title of the paper isn't "Composition laws for numbers"
You should care because you use operations without even knowing if they are defined.

>>10137247
my proof, idiot, depends on numbers in the nbhd of infinity have a larger norm than numbers in the nbhd of the origin.

>>10137249
>you use operations
cite that usage then.

>>10137262
[math]\widehat{\infty}[/math]
[math]\mathrm{my \ baby \ } \widehat{\infty}[/math]
[math]\mathrm{it \ makes \ sense, \ for \ sure}[/math]

>>10137262
>my proof, idiot, depends on numbers in the nbhd of infinity have a larger norm than numbers in the nbhd of the origin.
How do you know it doesn't have norm zero if you don't know its value?

>cite that usage then.
Literally every time you do arithmetic or take a norm.

yeah, but
>viXra
>into the trash

>>10137266
cite an operation that I did but did not define

A number near infinity has a larger norm than a number near zero. Is that over your head?

>>10137269
>cite an operation that I did but did not define
Let's see, there's addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and norms

>A number near infinity has a larger norm than a number near zero. Is that over your head?
You defined no such notion, and it's up to you to come up with a definition, determine the consequences of that definition, and, now this part is important, make sure you don't use any mathematical results where your definition contradicts everyone else's definition.

For example, you said the norm of infinity minus b was infinity. So you're saying that norms are not real numbers, among other things. I don't know how to compare not-real-numbers to real numbers. Is not-real-number greater than zero?

>>10137274
cite where I did one of those operations. You said I did operation without defining it. Where did I di that? There's only 12 numbered equations. In which one do I do an operation that I have not defined?

>>10137278
Let's see, equation 1.2 does division, in between equation 1.2 and 1.3 you use the norm in the text, equation 1.3 does division and multiplication, equation 1.4 does multiplication and subtraction, in equation 1.5 you do addition, in equation 1.6 you do addition, exponentiation (forgot to mention that one!), subtraction, and division, shall I go on?

Not once do you define what any of these operations are, and you cannot rely on other literature since your own definitions contradict everyone else's.

>>10137274
>You defined no such notion
Are accusing me of not explicitly stating that a large number is larger than a small number? The norm of a real number tells you how far it is from the origin.

>>10137274
>up to you to come up with a definition
Why would I define something I don't use?

How do you maintain this same air of arrogant intellectual prowess when I literally BTFOed your last thirty comments in a row. Literally 100% of everything you say is wrong. It is robotic.

>>10137283
You said yourself that infinity is not a real number, and only numbers in the neighborhood of infinity are real numbers. How should I do the comparison?

>Why would I define something I don't use?
You don't use any arithmetic operations? That's impressive considering how much arithmetic operations I pointed out.

>>10137282
>1.2 does division,
I don't do a division operation

> use the norm in the text,
I don't take the norm

>equation 1.3 does division and multiplication,
i compute neither of those types of composition

>equation 1.4 does multiplication and subtraction
you're only half wrong here. I did do multiplication. Did you need me to clarify that real numbers in the nbhd of the origin obeys the distributive property?

>1.5 you do addition,
nope

>1.6
wrong

Only 99% wrong, you improved.

>Not once do you define what any of these operations are
nor did I do any of those operations except for the distributive multiplicative operation of a real number acting from the left. This operation standard and does not require explicit clarification.

>>10137284
>how much arithmetic operations I pointed out.
you are so ignorant that you cannot discern between two quantities in composition and the execution of a composition operation.

If I don't compute A+B then I don't need define the operation. If you can't tell what A+B means even the absence of an explicit composition law then math is not a good area for you. You are stupid, and I would like to drill the teeth of the last 20 people you took a smiling photo with -- you or your software's author.

>>10137288
>I don't do a division operation
what is X over Y?
>I don't take the norm
what is ||X||?
>i compute neither of those types of composition [division and multiplication]
what is ZY? what is X/ZY?
>you're only half wrong here. I did do multiplication. Did you need me to clarify that real numbers in the nbhd of the origin obeys the distributive property?
Okay, I'll give you subtraction, since that's a notational thing. Now, I would like you to clarify that 0.5 times (infinity minus 2) gives (infinity minus 1) and that your multiplication doesn't respect ordering, but that's a separate issue.

>nope
what does + i y0 mean if not addition? And don't say complex numbers, because complex numbers are defined by addition.

>wrong
So the Riemann zeta function that you gave is not an infinite product with division by one minus a prime to a power? Or a sum of inverses of integers to powers? What weird notation you have.

>>10137299
>If I don't compute A+B then I don't need define the operation
lol

Okay Jon. Pretend you are the math community, and I am someone named Juan. I write a paper.
First I define infinity hat and use h to represent this. I say "it is not additively absorptive but basically infinity" and "t minus b for any integer b greater than or equal to zero is an integer" Now I define (h-b)^n = h - b^n, and define 1/(h - b) = 0.
At this point you should be asking something like "Well this system looks like it may be quite interesting, but why have you excluded h and (h+b) from the system? It is no longer closed under addition" but yiu keep reading, deciding it is likely a typo.
I then say "from these definitions "b^3 + (h-b)^3 = h^3, and we have disproven fermat's last theorem".
Please describe how you would feel after reading this and how you would respond, Jon; I am interested in your psychological processes.

wtf I just read the paper in the OP.
Jon maybe if you did some math in your paper they wouldn't have rejected it.
You do know that you're supposed to do math in physics, right??

>>10133852
>You can't reasonably pick and choose a subset of the definitions and say,
if a subset of your definitions are not consistent, throwing more on the heap ain't gonna fix the problem that your math is schizoid as shit

>>10137762
I thought that this inf-hat could be used to disprove FLT too, but then i thought that he will invent a new rule or actually accept the fact and even publish another paper, lol. Or just ignore the post.

>>10138021
The point is that it can be used to prove basically anything he wants because he only defines the operations he will ise in said proof and refuses to explore those definitions further. He's essentially created a number system whose only purpose is being a system over which rh is false, but which is useless for anything else because any operation he doesn't explicitly use in his paper isn't defined.

>>10138035
and that number system? albert einsteins

>>10138043
wut

>>10131619
Brainlet who's only qualification is schizophrenia who learned math from a guy famous for trying to publish numerology.

>>10137811
I'm pretty sure it's only one autist who insists calling this guy schizoid all over the board
he's not schizoid. schizoid disorder simply means extreme emotional flatness. it's tangentially related to schizophrenia at best, and explictly excludes people with delusions.

you should learn what words mean before you spam them.

>>10131822
Look up Jonathon Tooker on the website ViXra. Thinks he is god.

>>10138258
He used to apparently shit up r/Physics too

>>10138254
straight from the NIHM page on schizophrenia:

Positive symptoms: “Positive” symptoms are psychotic behaviors not generally seen in healthy people. People with positive symptoms may “lose touch” with some aspects of reality. Symptoms include:

+ Hallucinations
+ Delusions
+ Thought disorders (unusual or dysfunctional ways of thinking)
+ Movement disorders (agitated body movements)

Jon is definitely delusional. Who knows if he's schizoid, but from what he posts, it's not outside the realm of possibility. His tenacity that is note-worthily abnormal, especially when confronted with repeated demonstrations of how is thinking is flawed.

>>10138318
i dont think anon was specifically denying schizophrenia wrt jon, just saying that "schizoid" is wrong

>>10138318
>Who knows if he's schizoid
He is 100% not schizoid.
what I am trying to beat into your tiny brainlet skull is that schizoid=/=schizophrenic

>>10138399
I might be the person you are talking about who calls him schizoid. I fully understand the difference but I like to say that to trivialize his illness (in that no one cares enough to even get the name of his illness right) and trigger random people who for some reason care.

>>10138506
>no one cares enough
>spends 3000 hours in paint making flowcharts about him

>>10138528
I'd say 9001 is more accurate given the high grade of ability

>>10137299
Jon, tell me something.
Are the numbers in the neighbourhood of the origin real numbers?
Are the numbers in the neighbourhood of infinity real numbers?
If so then how can you claim in theorem 1.2 that a real number divided by a real number is 0?
And if not then what are they? And how are they meaningful for RH since it's only concerned with real and complex numbers?

>>10138528
>>10138531
It's less about caring and more about having nothing better to do and having that nice kind of autism that makes doing shit like that fun.

>>10137302
I claimed not to have done the done compositon operations and you are arguing as if I have claimed not to put anything in composition. Idiot.

>>10137762
>no longer closed under addition"
This is no big deal since I'm not defining a group or a field or a vector space...
>I am interested in your psychological processes.
I am going to stop responding to posts that address me by my familiar name. You can call me that to your friends but I don't like it when you call me that, and I won't forget that I didn't like it later.

>>10137811
>schizoid
Something is considered schizoidal if it is characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships.

>>10138035
>He's essentially created a number system whose only purpose is being a system over which rh is false
No, I have more some stuff in mind that I will attempt to make rigorous once I get the rudiments set in stone. I will define at some point what is called in math a "wheel" similar to a "ring" and I will extend the number system to include numbers larger than infinity and smaller than infinitesimals. I have it all laid out pretty well here. If no one else gets it worked out before I do it, then I will get to it when it seems like the next thing to do.
The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

>>10138254
>>10138318
A delusion is an easily disproven belief. I don't believe I have any of those. If you do, please cite them.

>>10138528
I am 99% sure that the person calling me schizo on here is my mother or sister, Helene, and I am 100% certain that Helene is the IRL originator of that meme (this is a fact.) That's why that one hurts me so much: it represents a betrayal from someone close to me.

>>10139078
You found me out, Jonathan. Please, take down your papers or I and my 50 proxies will keep calling you a schizo in your 4chan threads. I recommend you do so, since I as your mother
will even go to the lengths of leaking pictures of your tiny baby dick from when I used to change your diaper all those years ago just to make sure your oppressed genius that in no way shape or form is affected by mental illness comes out

>>10139096
If you are indeed my biological mother then you are very lucky. If not, I hope you think about me everyday when I put you in that thing your 50 proxies are going into, and their children, and the people that liked you, and the people you liked, and their children.
>http://2occatl.net/img2018/TRINITY___Scepter-Of-Power.jpg

>>10139096
What a coincidence that mental illness is such a pivotal issue in the life of Helene when that also just happens to be her area of professional expertise as a psychiatric nurse! Even though, to a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, I am certain that it is just a coincidence that the main issue in the story of Helene is also in that microcosm of technical issues on which she might claim to be an expert! What are the odds!?!?

>>10137268
Correct.

>>10139069
>I am going to stop responding to posts that address me by my familiar name. You can call me that to your friends but I don't like it when you call me that, and I won't forget that I didn't like it later.
JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON

What are you gonna do about it?

>>10139363
You or your software's author aren't going to like it at all.

>>10139373
Elaborate.

>>10139373
You responded to a post that addresses you by your familiar name, but you said:
>I am going to stop responding to posts that address me by my familiar name
Therefore, you are a liar.

>>10139376
It will be very elaborate, yes.

>>10139379
Explain.

>>10139380
Oh it'll be very explain for sure

>>10139383
yup

So, what's your opinion on the issue that FLT is also false for your inf-hat thing?

>>10139867
I haven't seen an argument claiming that FLT is false and I have been unable to even vaguely express my own intuition regarding the correctness of FLT. Indeed, with pic related definition it is hard for me to see the relevance of the numbers in the neighborhood of infinity.

>>10140821
oops

>>10138254
A better word is schizotypal (as in schizotypal personality disorder), or of course schizophrenic or schizoaffective

>>10140944
"Healthy" is the word you're looking for. Or maybe impoverished or indigent, but those aren't medical conditions. Basically, all of you in Helene's camp are saying that since I'm trying to make war on the infidel until I purge their execrable species from the face of the whole Earth instead of trying to get a girlfriend it means that I have a mental illness.

Schizotypal disorder is a mental disorder characterized by severe social anxiety
>no
thought disorder
>no
paranoid ideation
>yes
derealization
>no
transient psychosis
>no
often unconventional beliefs.
>yes

People with this disorder feel extreme discomfort with maintaining close relationships with people
>no
they think that their peers harbor negative thoughts towards them
>laughably the opposite
Peculiar speech mannerisms
>no
odd modes of dress
>no
react oddly in conversations
>define "odd"
not respond
>often
>talk to themselves.
very often

>>10141043
Can you paraphrase this please?

>>10141143
I don't have many of the symptoms of the disease alleged in the post I responded to.

>>10141163
maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that your math is quackery

>>10141166
my math is called "math." Do you mean to say that math is quackery? If so, I disagree.

>>10136810
I have looked into this. My finding is that there is no such this as an infinite product which converges to zero. If an infinite product is equal to zero then it is said to "diverge to zero."

>>10141186
I'm sorry you call that math. Perhaps if you had a recognition of rigorous definitions you would think otherwise

>>10141186
An infinite product can converge to a number or diverge to infinity. Since 0 is a real number, it would converge to 0.

What did the field axioms ever do to you? Did they touch you in your multiplicative inverse?

Who's saying, "Not only should we leave those torture implants in El Arcón's anus today, we should leave the remote control for those implants in El Arcón's enemy's hand, the same one who pierced his flesh to put them in there in the first place?"

>>10141043
That's not the way to test Schizotypal Personality Disorder..
This is the way:
Lo and Behold, the SPQ-B (short for Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief) that uses a three factor structure (Raine et al., 1994) "which best represents schizotypal personality, namely Cognitive-Perceptual Deficits (made up of dieas of Reference, Magical Thinking, Unusual Perceptual Experiences, and Paranoid Ideation), Interpersonal Deficits (Social Anxiety, No Close Friends, Blunted Affect, Paranoid Ideation), and Disorganization (Odd Behavior, Odd Speech)" (Raine et al., 1995) (the number in parenthesis indicates the allusion it makes to the original questionnaire (Raine, 1991), in the image I'll post in the next thread)

Raine, A., Reynolds, C, Lencz, T., Scerbo, A., Triphon, N., & Kim. D. (1994). Cognitiveperceptual, interpersonal, and disorganized features of schizotypal personality. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 20, 191-201.

Raine, A., Benishay, D., 1995. The SPQ-B: a brief screening instrument for
schizotypal personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders 9, 346–355.

Raine, A., 1991. The SPQ: a scale for the assessment of schizotypal personality based
on DSM-III-R criteria. Schizophrenia Bulletin 17, 555–564

(I'll post the SQP and the SQP-B in the next thread)

>>10141254
>>10141043
1. People sometimes find me aloof and distant. (8)
2. Have you ever had the sense that some person or force is around you, even though you cannot see anyone? (13)
3. People sometimes comment on my unusual mannerisms and habits. (14)
4. Are you sometimes sure that other people can tell what you are thinking? (21)
5. Have you ever noticed a common event or object that seemed to b a special sign for you? (28)
6. Some people think that I am a very bizarre person. (32)
7. I feel I have to be on my guard even with friends. (36)
8. Some people find me a bit vague and elusive during a conversation. (42)
9. Do you often pick up hidden threats or put-downs from thwat people say or do? (44)
10. When shopping do you get the feeling that other people are taking notice of you? (45)
11. I feel very uncomfortable in social situations involving unfamiliar people. (46)
12. Have you had experiences with astrology, seeing the future, UFOs, ESP, or a sixth sense? (47)
13. I sometimes use words in unusual ways. (50)
14. Have you foundt hat it is best not to let other people know too much about you? (52)
15. I tend to keep in the background on social occasions (57)
16. Do you ever suddenly feel distracted by distant sounds that you are not normally aware of? (61)
17. Do you often have to keep an eye out to stop people from taking advantage of you? (65)
18. Do you feel that you are unable to get "close" to people? (66)
19. I am an odd, unusual person. (67)
20. I find it hard to communicate clearly what I want to say to people. (69)
21. I feel very uneasy talking to people I do not know well. (71)
22. I tend to keep my feelings to myself. (73)

>>10141257
If you believe the truth then you have a symptom of a psychological disease.

>>10141426
>>10141257
pic

>>10141426
>>10141432
The test is not claiming its falseness but rather that this is common among people with schizotypal personality disorder and schizophrenia. It's just that it tends to be characteristic of those who have schizophrenia. (Andreasen, N. C., et al., 1991)

"Schneider's first rank symptoms and a belief in telepathy discriminated schizophrenics more reliably than other paranormal experiences" (Greyson, B., 1997)

Greyson, B. (1977). Telepathy in mental illness: Deluge or delusion. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 165(3), 184-200.

Andreasen, N. C., & Flaum, M. (1991). Schizophrenia: the characteristic symptoms. Schizophrenia bulletin, 17(1), 27-49.

But you know this article is pretty interesting (which doesn't give a pathological account of positive schizotypy, rather it says that genius is the combination of imagination and intellect, and that having a good deal of both is the best way to go, so that you have lots of mental connections but at the same time you're able to say these mental connections are actually true and these are rather false (not just hypothesis generation but hypothesis testing too)): https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beautiful-minds/201201/must-one-risk-madness-achieve-genius-0

>>10141718
>It's just that it tends to be characteristic of those who have schizophrenia
So... not believing the truth is a characteristic of healthy people?

>>10141815
It depends. Is your truth the truth? How can you know?

>>10141815
you're speaking of schizophrenia as if it were a pathology rather than the cause of reduced latent inhibition, like paying attention and learning almost everything you see, like inability to filter out, a very open attention, and similar ideas for what constitutes psychosis (which is the positive symptom factor of schizohprenia). A good model of positive schizophrenia , is in my opinion, the hyperlearning hyopthesis (Grasemann, et al., 2009) which more or less supports these ideas, and you can even make a computational model of language disturbance in schizophrenia based on this hypothesis. (Grasemann, et al., 2009; Grasemann, et al., 2011) and of course this is evaluated in terms of its similarity to those who have schizophrenia. (Grasemann, et al, 2010). Though none of these things are pathological on their own, it's just that compared to controls, these do not occur as much. It has nothing to do with truth (as there is no such claim being made).

Grasemann, Uli, Ralph Hoffman, and Risto Miikkulainen. "Hyperlearning: A connectionist model of psychosis in schizophrenia." Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Vol. 31. No. 31. 2009.


Gasemann, Uli, Ralph Hoffman, and Risto Miikulainen. "Modeling Acute and Compensated Language Disturbance in Schizophrenia." Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Vol. 33. No. 33. 2011.

Grasemann, Uli, et al. "Evaluating computational models of language disturbance in schizophrenia." BMC neuroscience 11.1 (2010): P99.


> not believing the truth is a characteristic of healthy people

You could say instead that healthy people do not notice the truth and that is why they don't believe in telepathy, because they don't have the same perspective as a person with schizophrenia would. (which is a condition to believe in the truth, that is conceiving it in the first place. (see the elaboration likelihood model)

hey jon, just a reminder since you ignored it:
retract your higgs boson paper:
>>10141491
it's retard tier

>>10141877
>>10141877
>delete your thing from the internet
ok

>>10141925
more like, if you want to be taken seriously, you should immediately remove that "paper" of high-school tier shit to save your own credibility, if you even still believe in it, as opposed to being /sci/'s resident pseud

telepathy has never been scientifically demonstrated, i thought you were a scientist?

>>10142808
I have seem mind reading, either telepathic or psychotronic, demonstrated rigorously on many occasions.

>>10143760
i knew it, those fucking glow in the darks

>>10139078
>my mother or sister, Helene,
Nah dumpass, I haven't posted in this thread yet :3

>>10139373
Hey Jon, whuss gucci my niggah

>>10143767
I'm reading his mind right now and it's full of dicks
It's no surprise he's this bad at math when all he ever thinks about is meaty dongs