/sci/ - Science & Math

It is a good question to solve, yes.

>>11095500
how can you know that for sure? it's literally never been done

Is the Riemann hypothesis the most obviously true fact that no one can prove?

Aside from number theory shit that can't be proven because intergers are too simple of course

>>11095935
>that no one can prove
Proof of its impossibility to be proven?

>>11095935
It isn't obviously true at all. Look at what Littlewood had to say about it.

>>11095935
It obviously isn't obviously true if no one can prove it,moron.

A better question is whether arXiv is going to reject my paper again based on their unpublished censorship criteria, or if they will say again that is "unrefereeable" and "contains no original scholarly content" and that "the author is fag."

>>11096922
Kek. Well it says in their ToS you can't be a fag, what did you expect

But it is refereeable, and it is chock full of original scholarly content, and I love pussy and would rather be alone for the rest of my life than to seek the sexual company of a man.

>>11096922
Stop fucking harassing them, Tooker. We here on /sci/ explained to you time and time again why your proof is incorrect. Just give up and do something actually productive.

>>11096960
Even if that mann is Riemann?

>>11096963
>explained to you time and time again why your proof is incorrect.
you stated this many times. you never explained it without building an argument on a falsehood, and there's a good reason to say such "explanations" aren't explanations at all.

>>11096922
Post it here and then I’ll peer review it kek

http://vixra.org/pdf/1906.0236v3.pdf

You’re actually retarded rofl. You can’t just pull out the extended reals and treat infinities as unique numbers, the problem (in its number theoretic formulation) is in the context of regular real numbers and the regular complex plane.

Sorry, actually it has nothing to do with the formulation, I meant to say you don’t fucking know what “infinity” means regardless of the problem statement.

>>11097122
pic is the most recent version. The version I sent to arXiv today will show up as v8 on viXra tomorrow at this address:
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1811.0222

arXiv says my paper is scheduled to announce in math.CV on Tuesday, but my full expectation is that they will place my submission on hold as per the instructions from their Mossad/CIA slave masters, and then they will remove it about a week later due to the author's name being what it is.

>>11097148
>You can’t
try proving that

>>11097157
>you don’t fucking know what “infinity” means
if you didn't see where I defined that symbol in the paper then you must not have read it.

>>11095497
Yes. As prime numbers are not subject to infintestiml divisable states. 1/2 is convergent because it is an statement that a 1 point must be non infantesmilly defined to get to the next.

Indeed.

Your family dies because of you how you misspelled those words.

>>11097403
There are no prime numbers in the neighborhood of infinity. Every prime number is a natural number, infidel.

>>11097764
>neighborhood of infinity
this guy keeps using this term. I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

>>11098972
I think you regret making this post later when you family is killed because of it.

>>11095497
Not really. It's a neat phenomenon, but it's pretty clear that the function is broken, and needs to be seriously reworked before you can start asking difficult questions of it

>>11098975
I don't have no friends or family lol joke's on you

>>11096960
Nobody has time for cranks. Your reputation is less than zero at this point, and it will only get lower if you don't publish something that mathematicians would actually care to look at (ie. not a problem that hundreds of people have claimed to have solved and one that builds on the work of many others without a massive departure and without introducing new axioms). For example, https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0603631.pdf

>>11099087
It is improper to reject a paper based on the reputation of the author instead of the content of the paper.

>>11097716
>Your family dies because of you how you misspelled those words.
>>11098975
>I think you regret making this post later when you family is killed because of it.
Please behave, Jonathan. Nobody is intimidated. It doesn't help you in any way. It only hurts your credibility. I say this out of love.

>>11099104
They are rejecting you on the content of your paper. It needs significant review and revision, to put it lightly.
You can try to appeal it if you want:
https://arxiv.org/help/moderation
But I doubt this will get very far, so tackle other problems.

>>11099117
>Nobody is intimidated.
Yes, I know that very well. I have no intention to do any of that to those who believe what I say.

> I say this out of love.
out of the love of the outrageous self-conception you have of yourself as something other than a piece of human trash whose touch is poison, I am sure.

>>11099128
I would rather just round up the arXiv staff later, and their friends and loved ones, and explain to them with cruelty and violence that they were wrong, and that my paper is not shittier than the other shitty papers that get announced on arXiv five days a week.

>>11099205
If you want to get somewhere, you should try something else then.
I doubt the people at Cornell give a fuck. And that isn't going to get you anywhere.

>>11099240
I want to get to where I can mock you when calamity overtakes you.

Hope it's false and find a counterexample. I doubt it exists though...

>>11099255
ok.

>>11099282
You're not going to think it's ok at that time. You're going to be so far from ok that it will remind people for millennia not to be like you, and that the Bible was serious when it says "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."