/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10918975
Missed u <3 You coming to Orange County?

>>10918993
Probably so. Going to try to do the Hank Moody/Fox Mulder thing.

Tell more people to buy my book.

>>10919004
hmu if you wanna go to disney

>>10919008
If you can get ten people to buy my book then maybe I'll be able to afford a day pass. I'll kiss you on the cheek too.

>>10918993
Are you a female
>>10918975
Let me know if you know where to find decent copies of the English translations of good Soviet physics and math textbooks. Otherwise I wish you luck in becoming the next Ramanujan.

>>10919022
>Are you a female
Yes (no)

>inb4 schizo
* * * THIS IS A CONTAINMENT THREAD * * *
Timesand always shits up other threads. Please just let him have his autism sandbox safe space so that he leaves the other math threads alone.

If I'm understanding this correctly, your infinity hat is basically "a very very large real number"?

Also, I take issue with your assertion that [math]\frac{n^b}{n^{\widehat{\infty}}} = 0[/math].
If [math]\widehat{\infty}[/math] is close to, but not quite, infinity, then [math]\frac{1}{\widehat{\infty}}[/math] should be a very small but non-zero quantity, something like like [math]dx[/math]

>>10919162
When two schizos disagree.

>>10919264
I may be crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Am I wrong in this case?

>>10919098
No. infinity is not a rel number. You obviously didn't even read the paper, pic related.

>>10919162
>If ∞ˆ is close to, but not quite, infinity,
where do you get this stupid idea? obviously not from my paper!!!

>>10919306
If they describe the same affinely extended real number, how do you justify operations on infinity hat that are invalid for infinity?

>>10919321
Why are you asking me questions about the paper without reading it?

The operations aren't invalid for infinity. At each step of some algebraic manipulation, regular infinity is bestowed with some freedom to execute the additive absorptive operation or not. The hat is an instruction about how to use that freedom. Why do you say "invalid?" (I know why! It's because you didn't read the paper.)

>>10919338
I did read the paper and I'm still confused which is why I'm asking questions, ya retard
It seems that you're building a version of infinity that has a series of convenient properties regular infinity doesn't have so you can prove that under this system of axioms that the Riemann hypothesis is false by driving the fraction with exponents to 0 in the Dirichlet sum.
What are you trying to accomplish here exactly? Adoption of this set of axioms into mainstream mathematics by showing that you can achieve impressive results with it?

>wants to prove RH
>apparently doesn't even know what a real number is
fucking moron

What makes you think inf-hat - b < inf? What makes you think there is a neighborhood of infinity, or that real numbers could be there? All real numbers are infinitely far from infinity

>>10918975
>infinity hat
You can't do this I'm sorry but that's not how mathematics works. If something is in the neighborhood of infinity this is just saying it's a large number... Yet you say that it isn't a real number so you contradict yourself.

>>10919440
Regular infinity is vested with freedom to do its algebraic operations in any order one wishes. The hat is an instruction not to do the additive absorptive operation. I'm not adding anything to regular infinity, I am simply telling you how to use the innate freedom to simplify or not to simplify.

What have added is an axiom that expression (inf-hat - B) have a certain ordering.

>What are you trying to accomplish here exactly?
I'm trying to get about $600k after taxes from Clay Institute. If people reject the ordered field definition of R and use the cut-in-a-line definition I have presented because it is better and contains a subset which has everything in it given by the ordered field definition, then I will be happy to have created a new system of the world.


===================
Job 38
The Lord Speaks

38 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:

2
“Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?

>>10919562
>What makes you think inf-hat - b < inf?
I kind of get that idea from Axiom 5.3.

>All real numbers are infinitely far from infinity
Nice opinion you have there. Try proving it.

>a real number is the lenght of a line segment
how do you define lenght?

>>10920044
Personally I don't buy it, but I don't know that much about pure math so my thoughts aren't really important anyways
Best of luck from with the Clay Institute

>>10918975
>Imma head out Californee way to hock my book about the Riemann hypothesis.
>>10919004
>Tell more people to buy my book.
You actually wrote a whole book on RH? Link plz. Permission to shill. I didn't catch this development in the saga of JWT.

>>10920168
No, my book is not really about RH. I did write a book though, a light fun one, and I hope you buy it, pic related.

>>10920594
If you can do a quick disproof of RH on the blank side of the cover with your signature, I'll seriously consider it. I'm eurofag, and definitely not confident enough to give you my contact info. Do you have suggestions on how I can avoid the wrath of the lion?

>>10920881
I'd make the forgiveness offering and the sin offering and the thanks offering, and then hope God likes what you bring him.

>>10920903
I'll actually read the book and post a proper and honest review on amazon. My only offer.

You can edit my review before I publish it too.

>>10920050
>I kind of get that idea from Axiom 5.3.
Nice opinion you have there. Try proving it.

No, seriously, you have to explain an axiom and what motivates it sufficiently for us to accept it. Plus it shouldn't have any major contradictions. Pic attached.

>>All real numbers are infinitely far from infinity
>Nice opinion you have there. Try proving it.
What's the limit of (x-n) as x approaches infinity? It'll always be infinity no matter what real number you pick.

>>10921272
>no matter what real number you pick.
n is the real number. whatever n you pick in R, the limit will always be infinity

>>10921263
I will see when someone actually buys a copy.

>>10919162
I think the n^{-inf+b} terms being identically equal to zero is highly consistent with the quotient R-hat/R-hat being always equal to one. Indeed, to accommodate the spectrum of neighborhoods that are X% of the way down the real number line, we would invoke the intermediate value theorem to require separate neighborhoods for each interior point of R, just like the separate neighborhoods we have given to the endpoints. To use the intermediate value theorem, we require that each interior point of R is between 0 and 100% of the way down a signed branch of the real number line. The numbers in these neighborhoods of R's interior points are the elements of [math]R_\infty\setminus\widehat{\mathbb{R}}[/math] which I discuss in pic related.

>>10921684
>>10921684
If inf-hat - b is a real number, then its inverse is one over itself. If inf-hat - b is a real number, then 1/(inf-hat -b) =/= 0

And you didn't say anything about the second half of my comment

You can't leave your opinion if you don't buy it on Amazon.

>>10922528
>its inverse is one over itself.
This is literally one of the field axioms. I clearly state that it is not my intention to analyze the axioms of a complete ordered field.

>>10922727
>>10922731
You are hopeless. Enjoy the ass shocking

>>10918975
if x = a + 1
why isn't inf-hat - x = inf-hat - a - 1 = inf-hat - a
by absorbing whenever u want?

>>10922727
The difference of a limit is not the limit of a difference IF one of the limits diverge, aka lim x->inf (x)

>tfw you realize you could have titled paper "Real Numbers in the Vicinity of Infinity"

>>10922762
Well, then I would challenge you to show that. If so, then I would say that you are choosing one case of bracketing and I have chosen a number with another bracketing. Since I have made several distinctions "this addition is not associative," it is important to assume the bracketing implied by the axioms. Associativity is the freedom to move the brackets to form the contradiction you suggest. However, is your contradiction valid? I think the reason why infinity is said to be beyond the realm of real analysis is because such contradictions do arise, but I claim to have circumnavigated them with my careful axioms. Since a number is a cut in the number line, the ordering axiom requires removing the parentheses from (inf-hat - b) before writing inf-hat as inf via the limit. The parentheses dictate the non-associative order of operations which says "don't write infinity as a limit when it is part of an R-hat number." If you take away the parentheses, then use the axiomatized non-absorption, there is no contradiction when
inf-hat - b = inf-hat - b

in its limit form.

>>10922762
>>10922777

>>10922901
A. http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcI/LimitProofs.aspx Scroll down to proof of 2. The proof requires that the two limits converge.

B. If inf-hat - b is a real number, then we treat it like a real fucking number. inf-hat - b shouldn't be out of the scope of real analysis if it's a real number, and we use infinity all the time in real analysis anyways. inf-hat - b is infinity just deal with it.