/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10207521
I bind my existence to this man's successful proof. May my atoms be obliterated and scorched from time if my devotion to his cause is any less than he needeth of me.

>>10207521
Huh?

>>10207569
I don't suppose you work for a journal? If I can publish then I can stop being homeless in two years when I get that $1M.

>>10207574

>>10207585
Excuse me, could you elaborate on what you mean by your post?

>>10207597

>>10207583
Not a journalist. You do however need other mathematicians to have vouched for you plus journal publication plus they have an arbitrary waiting period.

Would be faster to just make a language out of it or spend the time defining a practical fallout/outcome that your proof accurately measures.

All mathematics is is measurement so seems the best route.

>>10207597
Essentially a formatting of arguments.

>>10207597
There is a new version of this science report available: version 5. It contains a solution to one of the six famously unsolved Millennium prize problems.

Is this a meme or serious business.
I see a lot of definitions and verry little proof that they are equivalent to common accepted definitions.

>TIMESAND

>>10207755
They're not equivalent to the accepted definitions.

>>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.

>>10207808
That cannot be a definition, because then it depends on the definition of a real number line, which depends on the definition of real numbers. This is obviously circular, regardless of what you were once told in undergrad.

Once you have a real number line, you can talk about cuts, and you can prove that cuts in the real number line are the same as real numbers.

>>10207828
Nah, you are totally stupid. The definition of the real numbers depends on the definition of the real number line WHICH IS ANY UNIQUE LINE THAT I CALL REAL. The real number line's definition doesn't depend on real numbers you fucking retard. Your claim is without basis in fact and you should kill yourself for making such a stupid claim. KYS retard and stop being so fucking retarded.

Once you have made up your mind that something is wrong because I am the author of it, then you can make up any amount of bullshit to show why my work is wrong but all of it is bullshit. If you can come up with something that has a basis in the documents I produced and not solely in your detractive imagination then please produce it. Otherwise, kill yourself and drown your children to save them from the torture I will put them in to spite you and your stupid detractions.

>>10207854
And here we have it, folks, everything you needed to know.

>>10207808
>>10207828
a dedekind cut is one of the ways you can make a definition of the real numbers, but they cut the rationals not the reals
but i prefer cauchy sequences anyway

>>10207909
He doesn't like Dedekind cuts.

>>10207909
>>10207912
Dedekind cuts are needlessly specific and the reason there is a variety of cut named after Dedekind is because everyone knows that the real definition of real numbers is as a "cut" in the real number line. This is definition Dedekind was working with that he added to but I reject his additions and I myself work with the same simple definition "cut" that Dedekind himself used.

For fuck's sake mods just permaban this retard already

WHO WANTS TO GUESS WHAT DEFINITION OF REAL NUMBERS DEDEKIND LEARNED DURING HIS OWN INTRODUCTION TO ANALYSIS? HOW DID DEDEKIND BECOME FASCINATED WITH CUTS? (Hint: it's pic related)

>>10207964
it's not possible
he's homeless, he'll just go to another McDonald's and start a new thread

the only way to functionally ban him would be to rangeban the entire city he lives in, which would nuke probably thousands of users for no reason

>>10207974
>(Hint: it's pic related)
oops

can someone explain to me whats up

>>10207993
like my dick, my theory is the best

>>10207993
tl;dr version
>guy insists there exist numbers that are infinitely large but aren't infinity
>proceeds to evaluate an euler product at infinitely large negative number, gets zero
>sets this equal to zeta despite being outside the domain where this is actually true
>pushes 700 threads to the bump limit arguing this disproves the riemann hypothesis

>>10208027
>that are infinitely large
you are completely tarded

>>10208027
ok, thanks

now can we get some mods?

>>10208035
"Infinitely large" means larger than any integer in the definitions everybody but you uses.

Why hasn't this spamming retard been banned yet?

>>10208061
"smaller than infinity" means "less large than infinity" in the definitions of everyone who is fluent in English or even conversationally proficient

>>10208076
>declaring it to be less large than infinity
>without proof that such a number exists at all

Why the fuck don't you guys just join in? This is 4chan. We wind people up and inflate their ego so in the real world they do something interesting.

I am just sad he is not young enough to do a school shooting.

>>10208080
hes down a dead end tho

>>10208076
okay but nobody said "smaller than infinity", except you. the post you are replying to said "infinitely large".

>>10208078
>without proof that such a number exists at all
how fucking retarded are you? Did you even look at the paper?

>>10208095
smaller than infinity means "not infinitely large"

>>10208106
infinitely large means "as large as infinity"
smaller than infinity means "not as large as infinity"

>>10208100
>assuming all such numbers are distinct and not just +inf or -inf without proof

>changes definitions
>claims profound discovery

>>10208115
If
inf-hat - b = inf-hat

then inf-hat has the property of additive absorption. Inf-hat is defined not to have that property. Therefore
inf-hat - b != inf-hat

Thus it is proven, QED

I think this section might be the funniest thing this guy has ever written
>it's infinity except you can choose to make it different from infinity until that causes a contradiction and then it turns back into regular infinity

>>10208083
He isn't dead. Fuck if you can't put some effort into manipulating someone who FOR US just translates everything we say into his narrative.

Trojan horse package some psychological explosives or just see what he does to the next group of humans he sees.

>>10207521
>For some n in N
I chose n=1
0.99 is in neighborhood of origin
1.01 is not in the neighborhood of the origin

>>10208120
Dedekind was the one who changed the definition of real numbers that had already been in place for hundreds of years. If you mean inf-hat... then I didn't change the definition: inf is the same as ever. I analyzed an alternative construction inf-hat which has, to my knowledge, heretofore been ignored.

>>10208143
Dedekind's definition agreed with the past definition. Dedekind just moved away from decimal expansions.

>>10208143
>the definition of real numbers that had already been in place for hundreds of years.
If you're really convinced this definition is so incredibly standard you should be able to provide at least one checkable source that writes it down (i.e. not "my analysis teacher said so")
anything that old will be freely accessible online, you should be able to find it without much trouble

>>10208137
1 < 2 and 1 <3
Therefore, 1 is less than some n in N

>>10208132
>it's infinity except you can choose to make it different from infinity until that causes a contradiction and then it turns back into regular infinity
yes, this what the hat symbol does.

>>10208164
So "for some n in N" you mean "for any n in N"
Please adjust your work accordingly

>>10208164
I see you still don't know the difference between "for some" and "for all".

>>10208150
Dedekind altered the definition, and his definition is different than the one he learned in his own preliminary studies. He said that one wasn't good enough, but I say it was.

>you should be able to find it without much trouble
I'm not seeing much digitized technical source material from the early 19th century. Ask yourself this: why is there a variety of cut named after Dedekind? Is it not because cuts were a standard element of analysis in the time before Dedekind cuts existed?

>>10208180
>Dedekind altered the definition, and his definition is different than the one he learned in his own preliminary studies.

You've not once provided any evidence for this.

>>10208173
>>10208174
If it was "for any n in N" then I could examine the number 1.5 and ask "Is this smaller than any n in N?" I could use the number one to check if it is smaller, and I would find that 1.5 is not smaller than 1, and is therefore not smaller than any n in N, and is therefore not in the neighborhood of the origin. However, as it stands, 1.5 is smaller than 5 and 10 so it does conform to the definition of a number in the nbhd of the origin.

Okay, is it because you all are so focused on the terminology and relations?

N = -3/4

>>10208180
>Is it not because cuts were a standard element of analysis in the time before Dedekind cuts existed?
Maybe. It's possible, but I don't know, and neither do you. Without a source, all you have is a story that could be true.

I have to question how you can know that your definition is the same as the one Dedekind learned in his preliminary studies if you have zero documentation from Dedekind's (or anybody else from the period) writings showing this.

>>10207626
>>10207661
>>10207671
>>10207585
huh? and excuse me, could you elaborate on what you mean by this post? are a /ck/ meme which is supposed to tell autistic/dumb people they're being dumb in a way they're not able to understand

>>10208187
>You've not once provided any evidence for this.
Consider the statement, "Dedekind became famous for inventing nothing." This statement is unreasonable. Therefore, one must conclude that Dedekind became famous for inventing something. Since he invented a definition of real numbers, he cannot of have invented the definition of real numbers which he learned in his early studies because that was necessarily already invented.

>>10208208
He invented a definition that wasn't dependent on decimal expansions, which arbitrarily favor ten. It's been proven for a long time that Dedekind cuts are equivalent to decimal expansions.

>>10208190
Yeah, you're mixing up what you wrote and what you mean. Go learn basic English before trying to understand basic math

>>10208194
>the same as the one Dedekind learned in his preliminary studies
This is only my suspicion with the factual corollary being that real numbers were defined already long before Dedekind was born. My conjecture is that the pre-existing definition is the one I used. If you can find anything from pre-1850 about what a real number is that either confirms or denies my conjecture then please post it and I will absolutely not ignore it. As it is, I cannot find anything regarding the definition of reals used by Gauss, Euler, Riemann, and their contemporaries. I am confident that is the one I am using about cuts in the line (this is why analysis prof harped on this so much on the first day of class) but I concede that I have not produced a corroborative source. I hope you, too, concede that real numbers were already defined long before Dedekind was born and that that definition had nothing to do with "Dedekind" cuts.

>>10208190
Some natural numbers are less than 5, not any natural number is less than 5.

>>10208210
A Dedekind cut is one variety of cut. This is only one subspecies of the broader species of all cuts. That broader species is "real numbers" as in "real numbers are cuts in the real number line."

>>10208214
you're stupid

>>10208236
>you're stupid
Great rebuttal, truly shows your intelligence

>>10208236
Now define "real number line".

>>10208137
>>10208173
>>10208174
>>10208214
>>10208238
Holy shit, you are so dumb. 1.01 is in the neighbourhood of the origin because -n<1.01<n is indeed true for some n in N (for example n=2). The Lord understands the difference between "for some" and "for any" perfectly. You're the one who doesn't

>>10208224
I totally agree. What's your point?

>>10208238
If you think that was a rebuttal and not simply a statement then your own intelligence (lack thereof) is revealed.

>>10208241
pic... why are posting in this thread without looking at the paper?

>>10208268
Define a line

>>10208258

>>10208222
>I hope you, too, concede that real numbers were already defined long before Dedekind was born and that that definition had nothing to do with "Dedekind" cuts.
I don't agree that this is exactly true as stated. Certainly people before
Dedekind/Weierstrass/Bolzano/etc. had some intuition what a real number was, but largely they did not even _define_ them at all (which is why you can't find any definition in e.g. Riemann's work). At best they say some kind of meaningless tautology like
>numbers are quantities
which is what Euler does, and was basically the best anybody could manage from Euclid up to the rigorous restructuring.

There is simply no historical evidence at all of the definition
>a real number is a cut in the number line
being in use. Of course you are free to adopt this definition, but you should not make claims like "this has been around hundreds of years" or "Dedekind knew about this" without some supporting documentation.

>>10208268
You have never once said what the given line was when pressed. So you didn't give the definition, no matter how much you cry about how it's in the paper

>>10208271
You should just skip to the end of your line of questioning and ask me to define the characters of the Latino alphabet that I'm using to assemble these English words.

>>10208281
That is not a mathematical definition.

>>10208291
Define "That is not a mathematical definition."

>>10208295
A definition based on mathematical objects and axioms.

Reminder that Eudoxus formulated what we now call the Archimedean property (dude got ripped off), which states that for two positive numbers x and y with x < y, you can find an integer n such that x n > y. The whole point of this was to exclude infinities and infinitesimals.

>>10208164
Then name one real number that isn't in the neighborhood of the origin?

>>10208277
>you should not make claims like "this has been around hundreds of years" or "Dedekind knew about this" without some supporting documentation.
Here you make a valid point and yet since there is NO documentation about the definition they used, and certainly none to support your claim that Gauss, Euler, and Riemann used "meaningless" tautologies to lay the foundations of all of modern mathematics, I am content to bet all of my money on a conjecture that my tenured PhD professor at a major USA research university didn't just pull some random bullshit out of his ass when he taught me what real numbers are as they relate to what is called real mathematical analysis. Are you really going to bet all of your money on "meaningless tautologies?" Are you going to bet that Euler, Gauss, and Riemann relied on something "meaningless" to derive all of their meaningful work?

>>10208299
Define "A definition based on mathematical objects and axioms."

>>10208291
Yes it is. If you want a symbolic definition then pic related.

>>10208307
I've said this in a previous thread, but that's not a definition; it's notation.

>>10208303
I get that you're trying to be smart here, but you're completely missing the point.

>>10208307
>A number is a cut in a line
>Well, what line
>The real line
So you're saying real numbers are real numbers?

>>10208301
>name one real number
God's number

>>10208309
You said in this thread that the definition with words isn't a mathematical definition and you also said that the symbolic definition is not a mathematical definition, and that it is merely notation. Please identify some other channel for definitions besides words and symbols, and then i will make a definition in that channel.

>>10208317
>So you're saying real numbers are real numbers?
no, I'm not saying that though it is plainly true. What I'm saying is pic related

>>10208323
Then n=int(inf-b)+1

Also... rejected from Comptes Rendus today, no reason given. These riots witht he yellow vests started just after i sent my paper to their French journal" Comptes Rendus

>>10208329
>You said
No, I didn't.

>>10207521
Reminder to just report and not reply

>>10208339
define
>int( inf - b )

pic related, you can't

>>10208349
Report for what?

>>10208353
for being ugly

>>10208351
Since it causes a contraction don't you have to remove the hat by definition?

>>10208351
Define
>inf-b different from inf

You can't

>>10208353
Spamming
Trolling
Not sci or math as this bastardization isn't even math anymore

>>10208360

>>10208363
even if you remove the hat, the contradiction remains. Therefore, the contradiction is not related to the hat. The hat is only removed from contradictions caused by the hat.

>>10208373
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's trolling, spamming, or not math

Based schizoposter

>>10208379
Math has no regard for my feelings, and this most definitely is not math, it is a logical contradiction

>>10208385
Where is the logical contradiction?

>>10208366
I totally did, pic related, cretin

>>10208300
pls respond

>>10208390
Not going through the list of things again, just reread the thread, they are listed each time

>>10208388
Honestly, you should be able to find a few. If not, keep looking. If Tooker trying to blend anonymously, I know you'll neither find one nor accept all the ones pointed out to you

>>10208392
Archimedean property is that reals have no upper bound. Eudoxus made a certain statement of the property but Eudoxus' statement does not work for numbers in the nbhd of infinity. However, Archimedes' property (which he is given full and proper credit for) namely that the real have no upper bound, does still hold for the number in the nbhd of infinity. There are many statements of the property, but Archimedes' property has to with upper bounds, not multiplication.

>>10208413
Eudoxus' statement is the usual formulation of the Archimedean property. "No upper bound" is a bastardization; the point is there are no infinities or infinitesimals. Or are you going to disagree with Euclid?

>>10208258
I vouch for you.

>>10208423
Archimedes' property states that reals have no upper bound. Eudoxus' statement can be disproven with
x = 5
y = inf -1

so that
y > x

and yet there is no integer "n" such that
y < xn.

Eudoxus didn't get ripped off; Archimedes conjectured his eponymous property. Real numbers in the nbhd of infinity respect the Archimedean property.

>>10208443
Why is it a neighborhood and not a domain?

>>10208446
Please be more verbose so that I can fully understand what you are asking.

>>10208443
>Archimedes' property states that reals have no upper bound.
You can repeat that all you want, but Euclid disagrees.

>>10208451
Provide source

>>10208450
Why do you define associative proximity as a neighborhood instead of a domain or set. What, mathematically speaking, is your implied meaning by using that word neighborhood?

>>10208413
>Archimedean property is that reals have no upper bound.
eh, not really
Archimedes' original statement (pic related) is that any nonzero positive number added to itself enough times is eventually larger than any given quantity. or in modern language, that for any y and x there is some n with ny > x.

>>10208456
Book 5 of Euclid's Elements.