/sci/ - Science & Math

the elite doesn't want it to be solved. the resolution could implies knowing prime numbers repartition, then destroying international cryptography

>>12054618
>How likely it is that the Riemann hypothesis isn't decidable?
In which system? RH is a theorem of ZFC + RH...

>>12054618

The RH is ill-posed. The zeros have nothing to do with primes. The analytic continuation is a lie

>>12054629

You do realize there are more than one P =NP problem, right? If someone made a Quantum computer or solved the RH and it lead to a trivial algorithm for decomposing primes, then we could just pick another problem where the answer is easy to verify but very difficult to guess.

>>12054618
It is 0% likely that RH is not decidable.

>>12054629
If they make it known that I solved RH, then the knowledge will follow that I solved electrogravity. When people have flying cars, the fake version of the USA in the Antarctica slave hole isn't going to be fooling anyone. They spent a lot of money on that lie, and they don't want that. Also, the free-energy you can ilk out of negative time will kill the oil cartel, and those guys like the status they enjoy as it is now ans would prefer not to lose it.

>>12054653
This is wrong. ZFC is from the 20th century but RH is from the 19th.

>>12055909
Why did you get mad over a sandwich Took?

>>12055936
bro why haven't you collected your 1 MILL yet??? idgi

>>12055936
My name is Tooker. You can not call me a name and I will answer you, or you can use my name and I will answer you, but otherwise I will not answer you.

>>12055947
If you read Clay's fine print, you will see that the $1M isn't for being a good enough mathematician to solve the problem. What they real care about is if you're a good enough social networker to find someone to publish your solution. Other than that, the waiver they extended to Perelman for only publishing on arXiv is the EXACT same waiver which they would need to extend to me for my paper on viXra.

>>12054618
100% or 0%

pic: another paper deemed by arXiv to have "no scholarly content" in it.

the gangstalkers in the hall outside my room began cackling when I wrote that.

>>12055909
you can't subtract a finite number from infinity and get a finite number

>>12055903
>>12055909
>>12056071
>>12056078

Tooker, we went over this. Your "proof" explicitly contradicts that J(x) is a finite number for all finite x because if there were solutions to Riemann's Zeta function that were in the neighborhood of infinity then Riemann's formula for J(x) would be invalid but Riemann's paper was precisely about how J(x) works. Your argument leads to a contradiction, therefore your argument is invalid.

>>12056335
that and prop. 1.8 is retarded

>>12056313
I see you have an opinion there. If you try to support it with a mathematical statement, then I will have a look at it.

>>12056335
I see you have an opinion there. If you try to support it with a mathematical statement, then I will have a look at it.

>>12056337
Retarded propositions are not innately inadmissible.

>>12056943
send the proof to someone famous

>>12057140
I will send it to every email address you send me. My email is firstname.lastname@gmail.com, pic related. If you forward me some emails, I will BCC you on the ones I send and I forward the responses to you.

This is what would happen, IMO, in light of recent events. Even if the person liked it, they would google me and see my new video and say, "Oh! I'm not touching this, are you fucking kidding me?" That will save them from making up the lamer excuse they would have made up if they didn't have that convenient video to cite.

>>12057140
Look though: here was this other thing
>An anonymous 4chan post could help solve a 25-year-old math mystery
>https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18019464/4chan-anon-anime-haruhi-math-mystery
that got posed on 4chan and went straight to the media. Why do you think I need to jump into the intermediate step of sending my paper to a USA-sponsored man-in-the-middle attacker between me and the inbox of someone famous? Indeed, this whole thing about this other problem was designed to cover up what I had done: the timing was at the exact same time I posted my solution to RH on 4chan, pic related.

>>12055903
Are you dumb?
ZFC + RH is literally ZFC with the Riemann Hypothesis added as an axiom. Of course it's fucking true in ZFC + RH. The point was that when talking about decidability one need to specify in which axiomatic system we are working on.

>>12057170
That article had nothing to do with what you posted. It was the anime combinatoric problems.

Also why did you use the n word in public. Ya don goofed.

Here's an example of the kind of thing that would get said if I didn't have that convenient video out there now, if I even got a response at all. Pic related, Ken "Retard" Ono makes an unsupported claim in exactly the same way that the retards on this website make declarations without supporting them. I don't remember if this pic related theorem was in the paper he was rejecting, but it would not surprise me at all if he said the opposite of the thing I proved in the paper. In at least one other rejection letter regarding a paper in which I proved that some real numbers are greater than every natural number, the criticism in the rejection letter was "every real number is less than some natural number." Although I had proved the opposite in the paper, the "expert" reviewer, as does Ken in pic related, thinks his declaration is a sufficient proof.

>>12057204
CRINGE stop bothering him

Took you did this to yourself. Who the fuck calls someone a n**** for pausing your sandwich.

>>12057178
RH is a question that was asked in the 19th century. You're wondering if I'm dumb because I disagree with your claim that an axiom is theorem?
>Riemann Hypothesis added as an axiom.
>RH is a theorem of ZFC + RH...
Or do you think I'm dumb because I disagree with your assertion that "RH" is something other than what Riemann said it was?

>>12057187
I didn't goof. I don't subscribe to PC and I am glad I exposed the mutant aliens' fraud operation. That white man in the black face holding the camera goofed when he acted against me, which he had already been doing for 10 years or more by the time I called him a nagger at Publix. Overall, the masters of the society which choose to allow my enemies to act against me are the ones who erred. It was them publishing something about me to portray me in a negative light which history will record as the grievous error. Furthermore, this nagger video doesn't really my downgrade my professional situation from the felony residential burglary stuff that was already on there from when those same masters of society allowed the SWAT team to arrest me in my own legal residence.

As long as we're in femist mode of only playing with soft mittens in public, I guess it seems like a big deal to people who don't see the full situation. As soon as the nuclear war starts, aside from the EMP that destroys the internet, calling a white man a jogger isn't going to seem like as big of a deal as it does now.

>>12057211
Who are you talking about? The editor of the journal I sent my paper to?

>>12057222
My name is Tooker. If you don't call me by a name, then I will answer your question. If you call me by my name, then I will also answer your question. Otherwise, I will not answer you.

>>12057240
I'm not claiming RH is an axiom. I'm stating that there are several axiom systems in place. There is no meaning in talking about decidability if you don't specify which underlying axioms you are working with. As an example: In ZFC + RH, even if an uninteresting example, the riemann hypothesis is true.

So stop your nonsense. Talk about decidability once you have established in which underlying axiom scheme you are working with. Normally, this would be ZFC.

This person
>>12057222
must be Helen.

>>12057271
I reject your assertion that one would normally work on a 19th century problem in a 20th century framework. I don't need to say which axioms I'm using because, by default, I use the same Euclidean axioms that Riemann used. If you read Riemann's paper, you'll notice he never declared his scheme of axioms. The reason you think it needs to be declared is because you're stupid, or more likely you don't think it needs to be declared and you are lying.

>>12057271
RH in ZF is equivalent to a PA sentence, so one should probably consider that

>>12057287
What an interesting turtle!

I don't see how ZF is relevant to RH. For that reason, I am not compelled to discover what a PA sentence might be. Overall, RH is false and I proved it under the Euclidean axioms, so IMO one should probably consider than before any needlessly complicated modernist constructions.

>>12057287
This is correct

>>12057283
Nonsense. He never declared a scheme of axioms because they didn't exist at the time. However, the question is about the decidability of RH, not whether or not RH is true or false. If you want to talk about decidability but disregard all mathematics relevant to the topic, you are an idiot. And what the hell are you spouting about euclidian axioms???

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

>>12057283
>If you read Riemann's paper, you'll notice he never declared his scheme of axioms.
Axiom 1.1. RH is true

am I doing it right?

>>12057240
>society allowed the SWAT team to arrest me in my own legal residence
Did they really SWAT you for saying a bad word in public lmao nice America

I wish I knew enough mathematics to know exactly how bad Arcon's proof is.

>>12057304
Your claim that Euclid's axioms didn't exist in the 1850s in nonsense. The thing that I'm saying about the axioms of Euclidean geometry is that they were not declared in historical published analyses because it was understood that the whole community was using the same axioms. I thought it would be obvious I was using them too, and I was right, and it is only something stupid when people say that they were surprised to learn I did so, and it wasn't clear that the absence of the axioms implied the Euclidean axioms.

>>12057312
No. The swatted me for living peacefully and quietly at home alone in my own legal residence.

>>12057320
For some reason, I feel like you ~have~ mastered those few rudiments of the theory of functions which are required to see what I did there.

>>12055909
Getting pretty old and stale

>>12057336
Two years is pretty fresh and new in the story of the history of mathematics.

>>12055893
Could outline an example of a public encryption protocol that does not require large prime factors being hard to find?

>>12057304
RH is equivalent to e.g.

[math] \sigma(n) \le H_n + {\mathrm e}^{H_n} \log(H_n) [/math]

where [math] H_n = \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k} [/math] and sigma is the sum of divisors function.

And if exp and log bother you, you can further break it down to characteristic functions relating to prime factors.
Here's a long list
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/39944/collection-of-equivalent-forms-of-riemann-hypothesis

>>12057303
RH is equivalent to e.g.

[math] \sigma(n) \le H_n + {\mathrm e}^{H_n} \log(H_n) [/math]

where [math] H_n = \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k} [/math] and sigma is the sum of divisors function.

And if exp and log bother you, you can further break it down to characteristic functions relating to prime factors.
Here's a long list
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/39944/collection-of-equivalent-forms-of-riemann-hypothesis

>>12057414
I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

>>12057328
>>12057312
They swatted him because he was staying in a rental property without paying rent and the owner was so afraid of Tooker's aggressive hobo (and homo) look that he just called a swat team.

>>12057871
That was my legal residence where I had every right to be.

>>12055882
Hot take but I agree. Just mathematical witchcraft

>>12057904
Can you tell us exactly how you went from being homeless to obtaining a legal residence?

>>12057921
I worked during January 2017 before becoming homeless in April. My tax withholding was done as if I was going to make $100k in 2017 but I only made about $10k. Therefore, I got a large tax return in 2018. I used it to obtain a legal residence with a residential lease agreement.

>>12057951
That's cool. So you obtained a one-time payment from the government being retarded and got a lease. How did you get the income to continue paying the lease?

>>12057986
I did not.

>>12054618
>How likely it is that the Riemann hypothesis isn't decidable?

Zero chance - it is not 'symmetric' between being true and being false, in the following sense:

Question: Can you find one non-trivial zero not on the critical line? If yes the RH is false. If no the RH is true. Because the RH can be shown to be false by exhibiting a non-trivial zero not on the critical line and such a zero can be found by exhaustive computation the question has an answer. Hence the RH is decidable.

>>12058084
And what were the terms in your lease for failure to pay?

>>12058188
>Because the RH can be shown to be false by exhibiting a non-trivial zero not on the critical line and such a zero can be found by exhaustive computation the question has an answer
You can't have an exhaustive search to infinity, simply because the procedure you described never halts if the RH is true or if the algorithm never finds a solution.

>>12058246
>You can't have an exhaustive search to infinity

But any non-trivial zero occurs before infinity. Therefore if it's false it is decidable and the question of searching to infinity doesn't arise, so the halting problem is not applicable. Note how completely different this is to the Continuum Hypothesis.

>>12058203
Probably it said that the landlord would take me to evictions court to try to have me served with an eviction notice. I was never served one, however.

>>12058246
>implying the only form of proof is proof by exhaustion

>>12058351
Okay so an undecidable problem is one for which there cannot be an ALGORITHM which finds a solution (eg the halting problem). Are there any mathematical problems (theorems) for which there cannot be a PROOF? I mean it in the Godel sense - if we assume mathematics is incomplete, there must be a at least one theorem which cannot be proved. Can you give me an example of one (other than the theorem that ZFC set theory is consistent)?

>>12058412
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems

>>12058415
Am I confused or are you? Undecidable refers to a problem and a procedure. This isn't the same as a theorem and a proof. I literally just said this in the post you quoted.

>cannot be an ALGORITHM
I have learned a new word then.

>>12058412
>Okay so an undecidable problem is one for which there cannot be an ALGORITHM which finds a solution (eg the halting problem).

No that is not precise enough, and it is not what I wrote. Roughly speaking 'RH=true, is undecidable' states that it is neither provable nor refutable. Since I've shown that it's refutable, it cannot be undecidable.

The problem with 'undecidable' is that it has two definitions - one algorithmic, as a 'decision problem' (eg the halting problem) and one in the Gödel sense. They are related but it is not usual to frame RH as a decision problem so you must mean 'neither provable nor refutable'.

>>12058572
For theorems the term is 'independent' not 'undecidable'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(mathematical_logic)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_independent_of_ZFC

RH is a theorem, so it either has a proof or is independent.

RH as a decision problem (if you formulate it that way) is either decidable or undecidable.

>>12057147
A Gelfand triple means [math] \Phi \subseteq H \subseteq \Phi *[/math], with [math] \Phi * [/math] the dual of [math] \Phi [/math].
Is that true in your example? I don't think [math] \aleph [/math] is the dual of [math] \Omega[/math].

>>12058412
>Okay so an undecidable problem is one for which there cannot be an ALGORITHM which finds a solution
Maybe in computer science, but in mathematics an undecidable statement is one that doesn't follow from the axioms, but neither does its negation. There are no algorithms involved.

>>12058681
>A sentence σ is independent of a given first-order theory T if T neither proves nor refutes σ; that is, it is impossible to prove σ from T, and it is also impossible to prove from T that σ is false. Sometimes, σ is said (synonymously) to be undecidable from T; this is not the same meaning of "decidability" as in a decision problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(mathematical_logic)

>>12058732
>Sometimes, σ is said (synonymously) to be undecidable from T; this is not the same meaning of "decidability" as in a decision problem.
Exactly: in maths undecidable means the same as independent, which is different to undecidability in comp sci.

>>12058673
I am using the same symbols in this paper to refer to the manifolds and also the Hilbert spaces whose functions have the manifolds as their domains. For clarity in later work, I use aleph and Omega to refer to the respective 4D anti-de Sitter and de Sitter spaces, and I use aleph' and Omega' to refer to the vector spaces. By construction, aleph' is the dual of Omega'. The states in aleph' are functions of the coordinates of aleph, etc.

I concede that this early iteration of the notation was slightly ambiguous. I think it's clear enough in the context whether I'm talking about the manifold or the vector space but I changed the notation in later work. Since I ended up using aleph for all of my infinity stuff, I changed the aleph and aleph' here to Alpha and Alpha' prime in my most recent iteration of the notation.

>>12058383
And when the landlord went to inform you that he'd have to proceed this way after your first missed payment how did you react? Did you harass or threaten him?

>>12057147
You threw together a bunch of concepts that have nothing to do with each other. I'm 99% sure there is only something about Gelfand triples due to asking 'what is the formal math of quantum it isn't just a hilbert space', and finding about rigged hilbert spaces.

This is what Pauli would have referred to as 'not even wrong'

>>12059158
After I got the summons, I attended the hearing and other than that I did not interact with the guy. The judge found that I should be served an eviction notice but I had not been served one by the time I was arrested. Without service of the notice, my legal residency remained in place.

>>12058511
"unprovable theorem" is an oxymoron, but speaking of sentences, the page in it's starting paragraphs links to a list of ZFC statements undecidable from the axioms as well

>>12059245
Which concepts do you feel are unrelated?

The fundamental problem of quantum gravity is that the language of the two theories is so different that it is not possible to put a gravitational object into an equation such that it is equal to a quantum object. This was my big discovery: I found a way to forge that connection. Furthermore, I have the frequency cubed dependence of Planck's law attached to the stress-energy tensor. The Planck law has to get integrated to give a total energy density, and that is like how the "branes" are differential slices of the bulk. The states exist in one slice the way Planck's law gives the energy at one frequency.

I introduced the triple because position eigenstates don't exist in Hilbert space but they do in rigged Hilbert. Rather than forcing agreement between the quantum and geometric theories by making geometry fuzzy, I introduced the triple to make quantum unfuzzy. After I showed that my scheme of numbers immediately spat Einstein's equation, I showed that the same numbers, by a similar mechanism, also produced the fine structure constant. The scheme I used, in addition to constructing a bridge between GR and QM, produced the most important dimensionless constant of GR: 8π, the most important dimensionless constant of QM: 137, and later I showed that the leading coefficient of the basis decomposition is the most important dimensionless constant of EM: 1/4π.

Rather than saying
>REEEEEEE this is word salad
why not say what you see as disconnected and then ask me about it? You have revealed yourself as a shitcunt of the first kind when you read the paper and your first though is, "This author wrote garbage," without wondering, "Am I missing the author's point?" Name literally anything you think is conceptually unrelated, shitcunt.

>'not even wrong'
What's not even wrong? The parts about
[math] \frac{8\pi^3}{\pi^2}=8\pi\quad\text{and}\quad (\Phi\pi)^3+2\pi\ approx 137 [/math]
are not wrong at all.

>>12059375
Tooker do you find life to be meaningful?

>>12059360
No in a formal system a theorem is a sentence than can be generated from the axioms. Such a sentence can have a proof or not have a proof. There are theorems that have no proof, even though they are 'true' (generated from the axioms).

>>12059245
Which concepts do you feel are unrelated?

The fundamental problem of quantum gravity is that the language of the two theories is so different that it is not possible to put a gravitational object into an equation such that it is equal to a quantum object. This was my big discovery: I found a way to forge that connection. Furthermore, I have the frequency cubed dependence of Planck's law attached to the stress-energy tensor. The Planck law has to get integrated to give a total energy density, and that is like how the "branes" are differential slices of the bulk. The states exist in one slice the way Planck's law gives the energy at one frequency.

I introduced the triple because position eigenstates don't exist in Hilbert space but they do in rigged Hilbert. Rather than forcing agreement between the quantum and geometric theories by making geometry fuzzy, I introduced the triple to make quantum unfuzzy. After I showed that my scheme of numbers immediately spat Einstein's equation, I showed that the same numbers, by a similar mechanism, also produced the fine structure constant. The scheme I used, in addition to constructing a bridge between GR and QM, produced the most important dimensionless constant of GR: 8π, the most important dimensionless constant of QM: 137, and later I showed that the leading coefficient of the basis decomposition is the most important dimensionless constant of EM: 1/4π.

Rather than saying
>REEEEEEE this is word salad
why not say what you see as disconnected and then ask me about it? You have revealed yourself as a shitcunt of the first kind when you read the paper and your first though is, "This author wrote garbage," without wondering, "Am I missing the author's point?" Name literally anything you think is conceptually unrelated, shitcunt.

>'not even wrong'
What's not even wrong? The parts about
[math] \frac{8\pi^3}{\pi^2}=8\pi\quad\text{and}\quad (\Phi\pi)^3+2\pi\approx 137 [/math]
are not wrong at all.

>>12059382
yes

>>12059329
I'll take you at your word so yeah getting swatted is kinda shitty. That said, why did you even enter a lease you intended to break immediately? Wouldn't the initial money had been better invested in something momentary like hookers? All you did was pay to get swatted.

>>12059409

>>12059496
I paid all three months of the lease agreement and I intended to keep paying. I paid to have a peaceful place to sit and work. I invented the time circuit and solved the Yang--Mills mass gap problem that summer, and I found the limits of sine and cosine at infinity. I was able to have a shower without 15 other homeless guys naked in there with me, and I was able to pass the hours of the day with gangstalkers heckling from next door instead of the seat next to mine at the table in McDonalds. I was able to have a kitchen to prepare food, and I was able to sleep in a bed. I was able to have internet all day, and many other things, such as a washing machine for my clothes so I was no longer wearing dirty sweaty stinky clothes for days at a time, and air conditioning, and running water, and a roof, etc.

>All you did was pay to get swatted.
I didn't pay for that. Whoever got the police to wrongfully arrest me in my own home was the one who paid for it.

>>12059398
Perhaps you should try showing this to a physicist then-I know the basics of math and physics so I should at least be able to read this but I assure you it is as every bit of incomprehensible gibberish, and I would bet it would be to anyone else. If this is the only reaction you are getting, then perhaps it is time to reflect.

Let's start though with the most simple of background checks: are the units right? Equation 20 is wrong since the units don't match up, as there is inverse time on the right. This alone tells me something horrible went wrong in the calculation.

What else can I spot at a glance? Well, you use Minkowski space in the beginning and conflate the future t>t_0 with the light cone, which are not the same. 'Future' and 'past' only make so much sense in the light cones but so far as a given observer is concerned, there are points outside the light cone given coordinates t. You say the hypersurface of simultaneity is a function, the correspondence not at all clear. 'isomorphic' is meaningless here if your structures aren't defined...

Tensors act on given products of space and dual spaces. You are acting on a manifold which makes no sense. You set your operator equal to what I assume is angular frequency cubed, which is even more nonsensical setting a scalar equal to a tensor.

The function g and its relation to prior functions is absolutely non-existent...

Do I need to continue? Rather then making a Frankenstein monster from things you found on wikipedia and perhaps stack exchange, you actually try to learn physics?

>>12059636
Where are you living currently? Do u have a job or something?

>>12059871
>Dear Dr Soandso,
>This is nigger guy felony burglar who sent you all those spam emails several years ago
>i'm not homeless anymore, wanna hang out
>thanks!

> I assure you it is as every bit of incomprehensible gibberish
which was the first sentence you identified as gibberish? if what you say is true, then it should be the first sentence of the paper. Please cite the first sentence which identified as gibberish, shitcunt.

>Equation 20 is wrong since the units don't match up, as there is inverse time on the right.
You are wrong. I didn't even invent this equation. This is taught in the freshman semester of calc-based physics. The units are correct, shitcunt. If you think there is a problem, then show the problem, shitcunt, don't just be a shitcuntand say it's wrong. The inverse time on the right is exactly why the units are perfectly correct.

>you use Minkowski space in the beginning and conflate the future t>t_0 with the light cone,
No I don't. If you think I wrote something wrong, why not quote me, shitcunt?

> You say the hypersurface of simultaneity is a function
i don't

>Tensors act on given products of space and dual spaces. You are acting on a manifold which makes no sense.
You are wrong again. I don't do what you say.

>The function g and its relation to prior functions is absolutely non-existent...
That's the Cauchy theorem. it's taught in a junior level course in undergraduate complex analysis.

>Do I need to continue?
Instead of continuing with your bullshit, you could stop making up lies and tell me which was the first sentence in the paper which appeared to be gibberish to you. Beyond that, you try to find anything in the paper which supports the bullshit you made up.

>>12059921
I live on Earth, probably in Antarctica but maybe in North America. I don't have a job.

>>12059871
>Dear Dr Soandso,
>This is nigger guy felony burglar who sent you all those spam emails several years ago
>i'm not homeless anymore, wanna hang out
>thanks!

> I assure you it is as every bit of incomprehensible gibberish
which was the first sentence you identified as gibberish? if what you say is true, then it should be the first sentence of the paper. Please cite the first sentence which identified as gibberish, shitcunt.

>Equation 20 is wrong since the units don't match up, as there is inverse time on the right.
You are wrong. I didn't even invent this equation. This is taught in the freshman semester of calc-based physics. The units are correct, shitcunt. If you think there is a problem, then show the problem, shitcunt, don't just be a shitcuntand say it's wrong. The inverse time on the right is exactly why the units are perfectly correct.

>you use Minkowski space in the beginning and conflate the future t>t_0 with the light cone,
No I don't. If you think I wrote something wrong, why not quote me, shitcunt?

> You say the hypersurface of simultaneity is a function
[math] \mathcal{H} =\iiint dx^4_+dx^4_-dx^4\delta(t-t_0) [/math]

>Tensors act on given products of space and dual spaces. You are acting on a manifold which makes no sense.
You are wrong again. I don't do what you say.

>The function g and its relation to prior functions is absolutely non-existent...
That's the Cauchy theorem. it's taught in a junior level course in undergraduate complex analysis.

>Do I need to continue?
Instead of continuing with your bullshit, you could stop making up lies and tell me which was the first sentence in the paper which appeared to be gibberish to you. Beyond that, you try to find anything in the paper which supports the bullshit you made up.

>>12059921
I live on Earth, probably in Antarctica but maybe in North America. I don't have a job.

>>12060310
>You say the hypersurface of simultaneity is a function
I said it was "a function in a bulk." This is a good example of what a piece of shit your parents' child is. If you would have cited the whole context of what I said, then you would not have been able to suggest that what I wrote was wrong. However, you have taken me out of context to say that I defined a surface as a function when I did no such thing.

[math] \mathcal{H} =\iiint dx^4_+dx^4_-dx^4\delta(t-t_0) [/math]

>>12060310 (You)
>You say the hypersurface of simultaneity is a function
I said it was "a function in a bulk." This is a good example of what a piece of shit your parents' child is. If you would have cited the whole context of what I said, then you would not have been able to suggest that what I wrote was wrong. However, you have taken me out of context to say that I defined a surface as a function when I did no such thing.
[math] \mathcal{H} :=\iiint dx^4_+dx^4_-dx^4\delta(t-t_0) [/math]

>>12060310
I will admit I messed up on equation 20, a very stupid one at that. You must pardon me-I was pretty sure something looked off and looked for the quickest way of explaining that and failed.
Now, will you be able to do the same, that is admit your very clear mistakes? No, you won't. Of course you won't. You didn't with the tensors.

I still stand that this is gibberish.

I don't know what physics book you are looking at. After all, dv/dt is some vector that should, in rotation, be in different direction then v. And yet, we have v dtheta/dt, which would mean exactly that. Please let me know what page and source you are using from whatever standard physics book.

Also, as to Minkowski space, yes you do. The future light cone consists of all time-like events t>0, past t<0. You decompose it based on t>t_0 and t<t_0 in general-this doesn't define past and future since space-like events don't preserve casuality.

"You are wrong again. I don't do what you say."

Then you can define whatever nonsense you want but it won't work because, you know, these objects have meaning?

Your hypersurface is a manifold, right? You are identifying this with a function. How is this being identified-where is the topology, where is the locally euclidean property?

Cauchy's theorem or formula? Neither fits the bill here. Can you point specifically in whatever source you found this specific equation? If it is a derivation of yours, you should clearly outline what is going on, especially considering you are using 'points at infinity'.

The first sentence I identify as gibberish, an honorable mention goes to 'chronos' and 'chiros' because what in the hell but this is just definition so let's continue... yes certainly the part about 'gelfand triple' and yet referring this to parts of space-time and the icing on top, the dirac-delta on 12D and identifying this with the hypersurface of simultaneity, all completely different unrelated things? This is the first absolute piece of gibberish.

>>12060405
'the hypersurface of present IS a 3D delta function in a 12D bulk'.

This 'in 12D bulk' doesn't salvage your word salad any better. So it's a function on '12D bulk space', it's still a bloody function. Maybe that isn't what you meant. Who in the hell knows because as written is it meaningless-you have a manifold that you are equating to a function in some type of other space.

>>12057310
>Riemann used set theory cuz he used the word axiom
>>12058351
>But any non-trivial zero occurs before infinity
ok, but if you never run into one, then when would you stop the program and say it fails
thats what undecidable means

>>12059636
Damn Tooker, you really have had to live with the harsh realities of poverty and for that, I am truly sorry and hope it gets better. That said, if you are in this seriously dire economic situation then the way to make money is not to prove limits at infinity. You were supposed to get a job at Subway or something.Priority #1 is your living standard. Once your living standard is normalized you can do all the research you want. Come on Tooker. You may get lucky with money again in the future and at that time I hope you don't fuck it up. Any money you come upon should be for cheap shelter and a suit and tie for job interviews.

>>12055882
Based. Complex Analysis is the string theory of math.

>>12055903
Based schizo

>>12054618
It's decideable through convolution methods.

>>12055909
>the number infinity

>>12057395
>Could outline an example of a public encryption protocol that does not require large prime factors being hard to find?

If I wanted to spend 8 seconds on Google I'd do your homework for you

>>12055909
I don't understand proposition 1.8. Suppose infinity does not have the absorption property if I put a hat on it? What does that mean? How does the hat remove the absorption property of infinity? If I say, suppose 1* is 1 but without the multiplicative identity property, then what exactly is 1* ??

>>12054618
It's already been proven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZdlKo9Ee4c

>>12058246
Worse yet, you have to check an uncountably infinite array of numbers, there's nowhere to even start

>>12057283
Baby took his first logic course and is now big model theorist, just ignore him

>>12060627
>I still stand that this is gibberish.
Then why not post the first sentence in there which you identified as gibberish, shitcunt? I have addressed every point you raised and you refuse to cite the first sentence in the paper which appears to you to be gibberish. If what you say is true, it would be the first sentence in the paper and you could cite it in less than five seconds.

>After all, dv/dt is some vector that should, in rotation, be in different direction then v. And yet, we have v dtheta/dt
Here is another example of you being a shit cunt. "v" is obviously the speed. does that look like a fucking vector to you? Shitcunt, you are obviously reading this paper with the intention to think it is wrong rather than an intention to try to understand it.

>Also, as to Minkowski space, yes you do.
You're lying and the reason you can't quote me is because I didn't do what you say.

>Then you can define whatever nonsense you want but it won't work because, you know, these objects have meaning?
Which objects? Which nonsense? You dont quote me doing that because I never do it.

>You are identifying this with a function.
Do you see an identity written, shitcunt? The reason you don't see that it is because I have not given one.

> How is this being identified-where is the topology, where is the locally euclidean property?
You are using the word "identified" to avoid acknowledging that I have used words to describe the character of the object without formally identifying it. Shitcunt, you are not trying to understand the paper. You are trying to not understand it.

>>12060627
>Can you point specifically in whatever source you found this specific equation?
Whenever a pole lies along the real axis, add an imaginary term to move the pol off-axis and then integrate around the whole upper complex plane. If you look at the the three integrals, they give a closed path in the complex plane. This is a standard technique I I have memorized and I did not look it up anywhere.

>The first sentence I identify as gibberish
The first sentence is "Quantum mechanical state vectors evolve in time ac-cording to the Schrodinger equation. " Does that seem like gibberish to you? Why do you refuse to cite a sentence I wrote as the first one which appears to be gibberish to you. Do you mean this sentence: "For clarity in this article, the canonical theory of vector states |ψ〉is called chronos and the theory of tensor states |ψπ is called chiros." THAT IS PERFECTLY LUCID, SHIT CUNT. It's not gibberish, you're wrong or a liar. Obviously the whole thing isn't gibberish to you, or else you can't understand "Quantum mechanical state vectors evolve in time ac-cording to the Schrodinger equation." You don't quote a sentence because then you'd look like a retard saying you can't understand basic English. If you cited a sentence beyond the first paragraph, then you'd have to conceded that the first paragraph isn't gibberish. Since there's only about 30 paragraphs altogether, that would be a nice portion of the paper established as not being gibberish.

Overall, you don't quote me doing any of those things you say because I don't do them.

>>12060650
Shitcunt, I did not invent the hypersurface of the present, and I did not define it in the paper. The reason you know it's not a function is because you know the definition of that surface as well as i do. The obvious "meaningful" meaning of what i have written is that if one wants to integrate over something only on the hypersurface of the present then the condition "only on the hypersurface of the present" is implemented by putting the 3D delta function into the integral over the 12D volume. This is completely obvious. Usually in quantum theory, the context of the paper, one integrates over "all of space time." Here that is 12D instead of 4D. If you want to pick out just the hypersurface of the present, you put represent that with a delta function. The delta function in the integrand "is" the thing which defines the hypersurface.

Before you say, "You didn't write that," let me tell you that this paper is not about that and I am only developing a segue to rapidly present the numerical results in an established context. The main results of this paper are
[math] \frac{8\pi^3}{\pi^2}=8\pi\quad\text{and}\quad (\Phi\pi)^3+2\pi\approx 137[/math]
and you are going off on these tangents as if I was wrong to assume my reader doesn't have the expert subject matter knowledge to understand how a delta function is used to identify a surface in a bulk. You do have that knowledge, and you are being shitcunt with it.

>>12060715
You are wrong if you think my place in life is to be another man's wage slave. It is your place in life to bring me tithes and offerings.

>>12061230
>If I say, suppose 1* is 1 but without the multiplicative identity property, then what exactly is 1* ??
If 1 has that property, then it is possible to simplify expressions writing 1x=x. If we take that property away, then I would assume that means it we must not absorb 1* into x when we see 1*x. If we want to say what 1*x is equal to, then I suppose one would write 1*x=x1*. I wrote a longer, non-quick paper about RH
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
which doesn't leave so much to the imagination. If that's too long, then I also wrote a 20-page one which still has a lot more context than the "quick" one:
>Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
>https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030

>>12061548
"Then why not post the first sentence in there which you identified as gibberish"

I wrote that at the end.

*sigh* I'll quote you directly: "The past and future light cones define the space aleph and omega*, equation 3 shows these being four vectors with positive time component and negative time component respectively. But these do not mention time-like separation at all, a crucial requirement of the light cone.

"Which objects? Which nonsense? You dont quote me doing that because I never do it."

THE FUCKING TENSORS. I said tensors act on space and dual spaces (or are tensor products of, different interpretations), not manifolds or whatever the hell you are doing-you went 'nuh uh I don't follow your rules', I point out that is to be doing bad physics and then you're like 'QUOTE ME' after I literally just did that.

"You are identifying this with a function."

I see a 'hypersurface is a 3D dirac-delta function in a 12 bulk space', you earlier said this hypersurface was a manifold [by your quote "The labels aleph, H, and omega given to each vector space will also be used to label the manifolds on which the vectors are defined'"]

A manifold is a topology with charts from real space to open subsets. You said, based on the above quote that the hypersurface IS a 3D dirac delta function in 12D bulk space: so you are saying a manifold is a function on some space. That is, there is some type of equivalence. Function spaces exist and all but what manifold structure is it being given so that it can actually be said to BE a manifold?

>>12061584
I meant that the first sentence I identify as gibberish is the one about the hypersurface [based on gelfand triples] being a dirac-delta on 12D space, though perhaps the grammar didn't make that clear.

I didn't say you 'invented' the hypersurface of present. You defined it in your paper as set of point t=t_0 so I'm not sure why you're saying you didn't.

Perhaps this is what you are trying to say-the dirac-delta on minkowski space has non-zero range on the hypersurface of the present? I can only assume so. Then why didn't you just say so?

As to dv/dt, you explicitly say it 'gives the following simple relationships for the velocity and centripetal force'. Pardon me for thinking something was up when I didn't see the obligatory cross products that would entail in the vector case.

>>12061620
But it would appear I can't convince your to at least rewrite much of these to make it clearer so I'll move on. Truth be said, I kind of want to avoid speaking of later on because, you might not believe it, but I have 0 fucking clue what you are talking about half the time. If you, perhaps, take it slower, bit by bit, step by step, using standard terminology in the proper manner, this could be different.

And, perhaps I can't convince your otherwise, but when I look at other math papers that are way beyond my understanding, I can still understand the flow of the paper.

Anyhow... quantum mechanics of infinite potential walls. Okay, I got this. Okay, a bit confusing setting the wave function based on x and t as being the same wave function on npix/L and npiT/D but eh let's continue... I'm not sure how you got this solution... it should simply evolve as standard based on the time evolution operation up to duration... I don't get your tensor state notation... at all. No clue what pi is supposed to represent in this context. And then, you take the inner product of state vectors, which are elements of a certain hilbert space esc object in physics, then ask questions about rotation in the complex numbers, which was only mentioned by some obscure method in relation to minkowski space, completely devoid of complex numbers.

Uhm, you set D=phi for god knows what reason... you know the infinite box potential is meant to be to represent a given system-to fix a 'D and L' when making a general theory to something so arbitrary doesn't really make sense.

And once again, I tried reading it and find myself completely lost at what in the hell you are even attempting to do.

>>12061291
This is the answer. The RH is undecidable.

>>12061713
>equation 3 shows these being four vectors
Not it doesn't. Equaton 3 defines them as sets of points.

>I said tensors act on space and dual spaces (or are tensor products of, different interpretations)
I know what tensors are and what they do. I explicitly state that the same symbols are used to label the manifolds and the vector spaces, pic related. Even though I said the symbols refer to two things, you are are choosing to ignore what I wrote.

Overall, since your criticism is totally disjointed and you are not using quotes or green text in a way that is easy to read, and since I have BTFOed you 10 times, and since the sentence you cited as gibberish is a perfectly formed sentence with a subject, predicate, and an object, I am going to ignore you. If you can use greentext or quotes in the usual way, and if you provide citations to the parts of the paper you're referring to, then I will continue to entertain your inquiry.

The truth about the criticism od my early short paper here:
>peabrained professional glanced at it
>didn't even read all the sentences in order
>didn't take the time to carefully study it
>dismissed it as garbage
>wrote a report saying that they studied it and found it to be garbage
>signed the report
>got proven wrong by me
>because I am one million times better at physics than they are
>(even if they are more expert in making computations)
>now are too proud
>much too proud
>and their hubris too strong
>and their ego too big
>to say that they wrote their early reports about how it was garbage without even reading it all the sentences in order
true story

>>12059386
How is "generated from the axioms" different from "proof"?

>>12061925
>Overall, since your criticism is totally disjointed and you are not using quotes or green text in a way that is easy to read, and since I have BTFOed you 10 times, and since the sentence you cited as gibberish is a perfectly formed sentence with a subject, predicate, and an object, I am going to ignore you. If you can use greentext or quotes in the usual way, and if you provide citations to the parts of the paper you're referring to, then I will continue to entertain your inquiry.
so this is how schizos handle criticism

>>12061925

It's you with the large ego-this is every single criticism you are getting from experts apparently. I'm not an expert and I gave it a look and fully agree that I have 0 clue what's going due to disjointness and is 'word salad'.

.>Not it doesn't. Equaton 3 defines them as sets of points.

Right, as four vectors-the elements of Minkowski space?

You can continue ignoring these criticisms, but you must have such an ego placing you above all others. And you know what-sure, it is possible you are such a genius that knows way more then anyone or whatever and you your leaps of faith in logic are trivialities that don't need explaining, but guess what? The use of a mathematical idea is in developing others, and if you are the only person that understands them, what does that say? Perhaps you should try spelling everything out... and I'm going to let you on a secret, I will be willing to bet if you do this-you rigorously look at what tensor states are, what a manifold is, a gelfand triple, dirac-delta, cauchy's theorem, you will find a mistake.

In the meanwhile, good luck with your stubbornness.

>>12061932
Sorry I'll try to be clearer. A sentence is a theorem if it can be inferred from the axioms, and such a sentence would be provably true. There exist sentences that are valid, and 'appear' 'true', but cannot be proved to be true. Technically they are not theorems, but we can clearly see that they are, and in fact such statements may be added to the formal system as axioms, making them theorems.

There's a very simple example I have in a textbook on formal systems which shows how you might generate a list of theorems from some axioms using the inference rules, and then find that the a statement which describes the list of theorems is itself unprovable -- the only thing you can do is add the statement as an axiom to the system. Otherwise you just have a valid sentence that is neither true nor false.

So you're right, 'unprovable theorem' is an oxymoron.

>>12061989
(I'm not the person you're replying to but the other guy arguing with Tooker for god knows what reason, just thought I'd share a few things)

Truth in logic is always relative to a model. Speaking about true 'abstract' statements without this distinction is going to cause some trouble. By the completeness theorem, any universally true [that is, true for all models] first-order statement does actually have a proof, and so in a certain sense, every 'valid' first-order statement is universally true.

If a statement can't be proven from axioms, and yet it is not an outright contradiction, then it follows that neither it nor its negation are universally true-in turn, the truth of the statement entirely depends on the model. Such statements may be added to an axiom system by virtue of independence but since there exists a model in which the statement is false, it isn't clear that they are anymore obvious. You will have to judge the virtue of a statement on it's mathematical merit.

In the case of, for instance, in the case of axiom of choice, it isn't just that C can be added to ZF. So far as ZF is concerned, the existence of a choice function is independent to it's axioms. Rather, along with ZFC, there is also ZF~C, which allows us to do a set theory into which we know for sure there isn't a general choice function [there is a set which would violate the choice axiom] and so in this system you could prove that there is a vector space without a basis, for instance. There is no mathematical logical reason to pick one over the other. but the utility of choice in proving theorems of a general nature has tended to swing it in the direction of ZFC or ZF if we want to be ambivalent. ZF~C allows one to only speak of non-concrete counterexamples, which isn't very useful.

>>12062046
Thanks for the explanation I wasn't thinking about truth as relative to the model which clearly gave me the wrong impression.

>>12062046
>the truth of the statement entirely depends on the model.
Usually one reads something with the understanding, "It is what the author said it is," unless there is an obvious contradiction. Turd Burglar over here is reading under, "How can I seize on each little thing, pretend not to understand what he meant, and then say it was wrong."

>>12062055
I'll add one more thing, because I think the confusion arises when people encounters Godels incompleteness theorem, let PA be Peano Arithmetic-then PA can't prove cons(PA) [this is the type of statement based on list of theorems I would assume, the statement encoded in PA that 'PA is consistent']. But, hang on-that means there is a model M where cons(PA) is then false, but cons(PA) being false would mean numbers coding for derivations of a contradiction in PA, so if we simply reverse the Godel coding using in cons(PA), we should have surely shown PA as inconsistent? The issue-and that is where I started to really appreciate this idea, is that the model M is not necessarily the naturals. If we model as naturals, then since we know PA is consistent as it has a model, we then know that cons(PA) must be true-otherwise, we could indeed reverse in this manner, and obtain a derivation of a contradiction in PA, which isn't possible as it's consistent. So, there must be some other model M' of PA that isn't the naturals. In fact, this can be proven by other means, namely the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem. These are other models are called 'non-standard models of arithmetic'.

I find this to be pretty cool and just had to add.

>>12061662
>You are wrong if you think my place in life is to be another man's wage slave. It is your place in life to bring me tithes and offerings.

But nobody knows this because no one outside of 4chan knows you are God. Couldn't you work at Subway until your army comes around?

>>12056943
>If you try to support it with a mathematical statement, then I will have a look at it.
it's in the definition of infinity. From wikipedia: "represents something that is boundless or endless, or else something that is larger than any real or natural number." Subtracting from this "quantity" a number will still be larger than any other number, and thus its still infinity
>Retarded propositions are not innately inadmissible.
Their inadmissibility is why they're retarded Tooker

>>12057249
Took

Tooker go to a homeless shelter ffs

>>12062593
>>12062577
How do I filter out Tooker threads?

>>12062601
If you want life to be dull and boring then I suggest you avoid Tooker posts by disconnecting your computer and going to church.

I swear to god you can't discuss the riemann hypothesis on here without tooker freaking the fuck out
does he not sleep

>>12062556
>Subtracting from this "quantity" a number will still be larger than any other number, and thus its still infinity
Why not support your claim with a mathematical statement? Here is an example of me doing so:
[eqn] \widehat\infty-(\widehat\infty-\pi)=\pi [/eqn]
Here I have subtracted a real number from infinity and obtained a finite number. Another example is:
[eqn] \widehat\infty-\left(\aleph_{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}+762\right)=\aleph_{\left(\frac{2-\sqrt{2}}{2}\right)}-762[/eqn]
I have subtracted a real number from infinity and obtained a finite number twice for you now, and you have not posed a counter example for me to look at.

>>12063002
oo is such that oo+a for all real a is still oo.
oo-(oo-1) '=' 1 would mean that since oo-1=oo that we get 1'='oo-(oo-1)=oo-oo'=' 0 . If oo isn't such that oo+a, then fine-you aren't using the proper arithmetic properties of what is generally considered 'oo'.

Perhaps there is some number system that includes oo+a=/=oo and equal to something else but this would need to be explicitly defined, and I'm pretty sure the hyperreals have already done this.

>>12063129
>oo is such that oo+a for all real a is still oo.
This is not true for ooh ooh hat, however. I think perhaps you are conflating the magnitude of a number with its arithmetic operations. It seems to be your suggestion that since ooh ooh and ooh ooh hat have the same magnitude, they automatically have the same operations but I disagree.

>fine-you aren't using the proper arithmetic properties of what is generally considered 'oo'.
Was it lost on you that the reason introduced a new symbol "ooh ooh hat" was specifically to distinguish it from from what is generally called ooh ooh? Also, I am glad you agree that it is fine because if you do then you have arrived at the correct thinking about ooh ooh and ooh ooh hat.

>this would need to be explicitly defined
I think it would be sufficient to simply consider it is a proposition as I have here:
>Quick Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0236
However, I have also done the explicit definition of ooh ooh hat different from ooh ooh here:
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
Furthermore, I have a treatment of intermediate length here where I do explicitly define it without going into the definitions of all the little parts:
>Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
>https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030

Please write "inf" if you don't like TeX. ooh ooh is terrible.

>>12063169
>ooh ooh is terrible
LMAO I'm glad someone pointed this out

>>12054618
>discussing riemann on /sci/
you just wanted to summon tooker didnt you?

>>12063169
[math]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} f(n)=L[\math] is initially defined by an epsilon definition type argument, an entirely distinct epsilon different argument can be made in which it makes sense to say [math]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} f(n) = \infty[/math]. Since this condition and the above 'finite' limit condition both can't hold, it follows that the relation of 'lim' can in fact be considered a certain function. So, strictly speaking, this '[math]\infty[/math]' is distinct from that of say the projective real line. However, this is simply a matter of strict notation. Really, what's important is on convergence and divergence and if it diverges, in what manner. If we sum convergent series, we get convergent. If we sum divergent and convergent, get divergent. Summing divergent and divergent doesn't give a result in general but in this case, if it goes to [math]\plus \infty [/math], the sum will as well. If we introduce on this 'real number + inf' system we've set up based on these facts, one gets inf+a=inf and inf + inf = inf. By doing similar with the case with -inf, one could consider the absolute value to be meaningful, to yield inf on -inf and inf. In turn, one can essentially define the extended real number line to be the 'same' as these analytic infinities.

>>12063169
(continuing)
That is pretty much the only role of the extended real numbers. Beyond notational convenience, this doesn't appear terribly helpful in establishing something new. This is me trying to formalize what I think is trying to be said on page 31 of first link, which I don't have any clue. First, these absolute values-they haven't been clearly defined so I don't know what they exactly mean. If you are extending the definition of absolute value to these new elements, you have to first define these new elements, but you are doing that using the absolute values? That's circular. And then while the right equation I understand to some extent... the left doesn't make any sense from what we know about plus or infinity, being a notational shorthand-since it occurs before the absolute values, it must be, it can't refer to a new number with your system since then it would be adjoind purely to the infinity... so in what sense is the plus or infinity meaningful, where we tend to refer to two different numbers, which you apparently are saying are equivalent to a single limit? You are setting this equal to a very specific limit type that, unlike the above cases, doesn't exist and doesn't have any obvious interpretation as notational shorthand. But okay, we could define this limit to equal some new element based on the limits of its right and left hand[but, my point on 'notational shorthand' remains]. So then, what about the function -1/x? This swaps it, so is this limit as x goes to zero, is it this a new element, and where is it in your paper? This can certainly be done but what's the point... just refer to left hand and right limits.

>>12063169
*sigh*
Let's try this with Latex again. This is the first part.

[math]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} f(n)=L[/math]is initially defined by an epsilon definition type argument,an entirely distinct epsilon argument can be made in which it makes sense to say[math]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} f(n)=\infty [/math] . Since this condition and the above 'finite' limit condition both can't hold, it follows that the relation of 'lim' can in fact be considered a certain function. So, strictly speaking, this '[math] \infty [/math]' is distinct from that of say the projective real line. However, this is simply a matter of strict notation. Really, what's important is on convergence and divergence and if it diverges, in what manner. If we sum convergent series, we get convergent. If we sum divergent and convergent, get divergent. Summing divergent and divergent doesn't give a result in general but in this case, if it goes to [math]\plus \infty [/math], the sum will as well. If we introduce on this 'real number + inf' system we've set up based on these facts, one gets inf+a=inf and inf + inf = inf. By doing similar with the case with -inf, one could consider the absolute value to be meaningful, to yield inf on -inf and inf. In turn, one can essentially define the extended real number line to be the 'same' as these analytic infinities.

>>12061224
>>12057395
AES, didn't need a Google search. You're both dumb. It's just common sense. It's completely adds, rounds, shifts, and LUTs, which makes it very nice for embedded systems.
>>12055893
Proving that a problem is NP hard is done by proving that it is equivalent to another problem that is already NP hard. If you find a solution to one NP hard problem, you have found the solution to the other equivalent problems.

>>12063405
>rounds
substitutions*

>>12063405
>If you find a solution to one NP hard problem, you have found the solution to the other equivalent problems.
Gross misunderstanding. First of all, you don't 'find a solution' to an NP problem to solve P=NP. You have to find a solution that is in the P complexity. The second thing is this solution doesn't tell you how to solve other equivalent problems. That's like saying that if you can solve a P problem then you know how to solve all P problem. Jesus Christ why are you talking about stuff you don't understand?

>>12062601
Delete /sci/

>>12063618
Finding it in P complexity was assumed. This is seriously simple so excuse me for taking a language shortcut. And yes, proving that the problem is equivalent gives you a translation to the problem space. That is part of the reason why finding the solution to one NP complete problem is so important, aside from the implications of it being proven that P=NP.

>>12057147
Ahh yes the churros theory

Tooker your mother is a whore and your shit at maths

>>12063386
>First, these absolute values-they haven't been clearly defined so I don't know what they exactly mean.
It means that line segment of length INF has the same length as a line segment of length INFHAT. I didn't define the absolute value notation because I am using it in the standard way. It's not "circular." It's standard.

>what I think is trying to be said on page 31 of first link
Since you didn't cite the article number, e.g. Theorem 2.2.7, and the first link only has five pages, I am 100% sure you are fucking with me. Get a life. Also, try using the *eqn* tag instead of the *math* tag.

>>12063800
In whose womb was I conceived? It's quite possible that you are talking about my sister who told me the lie that she was my mother.

>>12063848
Sorry to hear about your troubled childhood.

>>12063859
I will repay.

>>12057147
>>12057240
>>12057249
>>12057328
>>12059398
This is why we can't have nice things.

>>12064102
Tooker IS the nice thing. I would have left this board a long time ago if it wasn't for Tooker. Tooker is like a live comedy act but it also is the only mathematical comedy act. You can't understand why Tooker is wrong if you don't know math. And to tackle Tooker's pseudo-mathematical arguments you also need to use math. It's like God created a comedy show just for me by mixing mathematics, schizophrenia, retardation, and autism into one man and that is Jonathan W. Tooker. God bless his soul.

>>12063836
All right, Definition 4.3.7 in https://vixra.org/pdf/1906.0237v3.pdf..

But, you've been enough of an asshat to me that's it clear you won't take no for an answer without throwing a hissy fit. As it stands though, for you, everyone else is wrong and you're the only right one and it won't be any other way.

Just for the hell of it, here are some other things I noticed. Be sure to appreciate it because it will be one of the few times somewhat looks at it.

Definition 2.1.1 is a mess since 'infinitely far' isn't well defined in a topological sense, it isn't clear what you meant by 'dimension' [lebesgue dimension, inductive, hausdorff?], since we are referring to a topological space. Perhaps you mean manifold of dimension 1? Well... The circle and line are both 1D Hausdorff spaces-the circle in fact being the topology of the projectively extended real line, so is really the '1D hausdorff space extended to a point at infinity. Obviously, (-inf,-1) U (1,inf) is a 1D hausdorff space that extends infinitely far out but shouldn't count as a number line-you should act a connectibility requirement. Then, all you need to do is exclude the circle, since the circle and real number line are known to classify 1D manifolds but you need to then change your definition. Your FIRST definition, once again, misses multiple marks.

In Definition 2.1.2, x and y are elements of the space, chart is a type of function between real space and a manifold so this definition makes no sense and a chart isn't the element itself so this is a weird equivalence[also, we NEVER mentioned manifolds] yet. And, this definition doesn't work because it assumes arithmetic of a general number line not granted by it's topological nature...

And definition 2.1.3 is just a cop-out-you need to show uniqueness.

I really should've done this is I point out your bullshit is all on arxiv and therefore say it isn't something I should waste my time on and that's the hard truth.

Good fucking day to you.

>>12064469
>infinitely far
>dimension
Definitions appear in the dictionary

>since we are referring to a topological space.
I'm not doing that. The topological context begins in section 7, shitcunt.

>Perhaps you mean manifold of dimension 1?
1D Hausdorff spaces are manifolds of dimension 1.

>circle and line are both 1D Hausdorff spaces
Circle doesn't extend infinitely far. It only extends to its radius, shitcunt.

>1D hausdorff space extended to a point at infinity.
Do you even know what a Hausdorff space is, shitcunt? If you did, you would know how stupid that is.

>you should act a connectibility requirement.
That requirement is give in the second sentence of Def 2.1.1

>all you need to do is exclude the circle
The circle is excluded due to its lack of infinite extent in both directions.

>Your FIRST definition, once again, misses multiple marks.
Everything you wrote about Def 2.1.1 was wrong and/or stupid, shitcunt.

>x and y are elements of the space,
no they aren't.

>this definition doesn't work because it assumes arithmetic of a general number line
It does work because the Euclidean metric is well known object

>not granted by it's topological nature...
It's granted by the definition of the Euclidean metric, shitcunt.

>you need to show uniqueness.
I don't need to show it.

Later on when your family is going into the sick defilement, I hope you'll better understand why I take the time to respond to you. I like to demonstrate your wrongness here, and I will demonstrate you wrongness further when I feed your relatives' children to the maggots. It pleases me to make it known that you were wrong.

>>12064590
So, I should teleport to section 7 to understand your first definitions? There is no connectibility requirement-you claim it is in general represented by a given interval.

You still haven't defined infinitely far. Also, the circle does count because it is homeomorphic to real projective line which has a point at infinity which should obviously be considered 'infinitely far'.

As it stands, you won't consider a statement as much as a simple counterexample if it doesn't fit your preconceptions. As I said, good day.

>>12064744
>should teleport to section 7 to understand your first definitions?
no

>connectibility requirement-you claim it is in general represented by a given interval
there is

>You still haven't defined infinitely far.
the definitions of these words still appear in the dictionary

> the circle does count
it does not because it only extends as far as its radius

>real projective line which has a point at infinity
this is not Hausdorff space, so obviously you are wrong and stupid, shitcunt

>>12063670
>proving that the problem is equivalent gives you a translation to the problem space
It doesn't give you the P complexity algorithm though. Also, more importantly, as I'm sure you know these things are all about worst case scenario, and in practical terms even if you did have all the algorithms it does not mean you have 'solved' prime factorisation. There is much exaggeration about the implications of solving this problem, that's why computer scientists care, and most of them have assumed that N != NP.

>>12065143
based schizo keep going

>>12065143
"no"

Then I maintain my point that the definitions of section 1 are invalid since you told me that the issues I mentioned are mentioned... all the way in section 7.

"the definitions of these words still appear in the dictionary"

Which doesn't give one a mathematical definition.

"it does not because it only extends as far as its radius"

The topological circle has no 'radius'. You could imagine it as the solution set to x^2+y^2 = 1, or as the set of unit complex numbers, even as an ellipse-as a quotient of the real line, the one point compactification, as SO(2) or U(1), as reduced suspension of the 0-sphere {0,1}, as the quotient [0,1]/{0,1}, and many others. It should be evident how there is no natural 'radius' defined for many of these.

"this is not Hausdorff space"

This is a pretty simple topological fact.

Let R* be one point compactification (=real projective line topology) of R. If p and q are in R, we can clearly separate them with open sets. Let a real number p and the 'point at infinity' * be given. Let us pick a closed interval (and hence compact) C about p so that we can pick an open set U containing p contained. Then, R*-C contains * and is open by definition of one-point compactification, and does not intersect U. There two open sets separate p and *, and so we've shown R* is hausdorff.

>>12064469
>https://vixra.org/pdf/1906.0237v3.pdf

LMAO the "topology of the real line"

it's a fucking LINE Tooker jesus christ.

>>12054618
> Good thread idea
>Tooker comes and shits up the thread with his schizo garbage
>Idiots actually try to debate him and shit the thread up further

Replying to tooker should warrant a permanent ban from the board

>>12065335
My mistake, you are correct.

>vixra
Holy shit I just looked at some submissions here. AWFUL. The idea is good in principle but some of the shit posted here looks like high school assigments

>>12065335
>I maintain my point that the definitions of section 1 are invalid
I don't disagree.

>Which doesn't give one a mathematical definition.
I agree. The mathematical definition of infinite extent comes in the second sentence, and the third.

>The topological circle
I don't mention a circle of any variety, so I do not see the relevance of your reference to one.

>This is a pretty simple topological fact.
I agree.

>>12065337
Please share more of your hot rhetorical devices with me, genius.

>>12065391
viXra is for people who can't on arXiv whose standards are already VERY low once you climb of the endorsement hurdle.

>>12065337
>topology of the real line
>a line is a 1D space extending infinitely far in both directions
topologists btfo

>>12056078
Man, please stop torturing yourself and get help.

>>12066131
The topological treatment appears in Section 7 and it is surprisingly complicated.

Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

LMAO you've been doing this for years!

>>12066192
Pic related, I most certainly have.

>>12066239
maybe you should spend more time listening to feedback and realising that half of what you write is nonsense

>>12066253
Maybe if you cite something that you think is nonsense, then I will be able to evaluate the feedback you think I should spend more time listening to.

>>12060818
>Based. These things that are beyond me are just memes because I don't like them and can't understand them
Infinitely basado indeed

>>12066260
people already have. hundreds of people have responded to you and you refuse to listen. why would i waste my time arguing with you? if this was philosophy maybe it would be interesting but in mathematics it's easy to demonstrate where your flaw is so the discussion is a waste of time

>>12066239
>I spent a lot of time on this step
That's something really ironic to write

Who would have thought the Riemann hypothesis was mostly a communication problem.
Dumb mathematicians.

>>12066381
>hundreds of people have responded to you
I HIGHLY doubt that.

>why would i waste my time arguing with you?
You tell me.

>it's easy to demonstrate where your flaw is
For this reason, I have demonstrated the flaws in almost all of the criticism levied against me and the ones I didn't find flaws are reflected in the current iteration of the work.

>>12066397
Literally I watched some youtubes about RH one night and I solved the problem in about an hour.

>>12057240
>>12063848
who is this woman

>>12066446
It's Helene Gutfreund. She drops her eyebrow bones in all of her disguise photos. That's her dungeon beneath the 5759 unit in Sunrise Pointe in Tucson, AZ.

>>12066446
Her real face here, after she bleached away her freckles. Her catchphrase when she wants to start tormenting me has always been, "Let the fun begin," and that's why Jigsaw says, "Let the games begin," as his catchphrase in the movies made about Helene's serial killing.

>>12066428
>Literally I watched some youtubes about RH one night and I solved the problem in about an hour.
Well done dude. Why bother with years of research when you can just do the math?
Maybe tho you don't have to convince everyone of the validity of your work. What would that really change after all? Are those academics and neckbeards even worth educating, considering the way they treat you in exchange?
You already accomplished your destiny and proved the truth, you can live on in serenity, with the peace of the just. Educating us plebs could only do you a disservice.

Helene has very wide hips that give her a unique gait. This is obviously her and these costumes have huge hips to hide her hips. On top of that, Helene has this creepy saunter that she likes to do, and that it is right there in the blank soup room video. I know it very well, I have seen it all my life.

Among the three authors of Daisy's destruction, we have
TheWoodman: Helene "The Woman" Gutfreund
TheSolipsist: Joseph Kuklinski, Helene's husband
Jacob666: Carlos "The Jackal" Cavalcanti

Helene is the Director of the CIA right now where she uses the alias Gina "Bloody Vagina Has a Spell" Haspell. The truth about Haspel's background in the "Thai blacksite torture prison" is all of this stuff here, and very much more as well.

>>12066473
Hi Jonathan. This is pathetic mate. Stop it.

>>12066473
>Why bother with years of research when you can just do the math?
I had developed my own niche language for some previous work in physics. That language made it very easy for me to put the solution together. It was the highly non-standard language in this paper:
On The Riemann Zeta Function
https://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073
It was written in the style of a physics paper rather than the style of a math paper. It took me several months of work to convert the proof into the standard mathematical language.

>What would that really change after all?
All those things on the internet which say RH is "the most important unsolved problem in mathematics" would get changed to say that that's what it used to be. That is the main first order result that I'm looking for.

>Are those academics and neckbeards even worth educating
What I write is the Word of God and the Testimony of Jesus Christ. My effort is to make those things known and I will make them even if they prove futile due to the countervailing efforts of those who would hide the Testimony of Jesus Christ because it is bitter poison which would surely kill them if it ever reached its intended audience. So, yes is the answer to your question. The time I spend giving my testimony is worth it.

>You already accomplished your destiny and proved the truth
This is wrong.

> could only do you a disservice.
IMO, if someone's knowledge increases, then that serves my purposes. If the only thing I accomplish is to increase the crimes of those who hide the Word of God, then that also serves my purposes.

>>12066489
This really got me thinking. Schizophrenia is a truly horrible disease. Not only did it destroy someone who could have been a great physicist, as I'm sure that without your distorted reality you wouldn't have raped those two girls, but also it destroyed your family and I'm sure your mother is heartbroken watching her baby not only hate her but also live life as a homeless and hopeless lunatic.

Sometimes I think that it is righteous to discuss your theorems with you as may be teaching you the mathematical logic to see the errors in your theorems could somehow counteract your schizophrenia and bring you back to reality but seeing all of this human suffering I really can just ask if euthanasia is the only solution. I'm sorry Tooker, for not being able to do more for you.

>>12066528
That is not me. If it's coming from my IP, it's one of my stalkers in the adjacent rooms.

>>12066552
Are you in a homeless shelter?

>>12066545
>What I write is the Word of God and the Testimony of Jesus Christ.
Maybe you should write them down as co-author on your papers.
You've got wonderful friends Tooker. We would all be lying if we told you we weren't jealous.

>>12066549
Who are you replying to? Me: Tooker?

If you're one of the people saying that I have a psychiatric disease then you are also one of the people whose family is going to get fed to the maggots. My destiny is to command the obedience of the nations and I will do terrible, horrible, dreadful, disgusting things to my scoffers and stalkers. You really have no reason to be 100% sure that I am not who I say I am, and if you're only 99.999999% sure then the odds are not in it for you to wager those years of agony and the extermination of your ancestors' descendants against whatever fleeing moment of self-exaltation you generate for yourself by implying that I am diseased. Same thing goes for you operator if you are a bot.

I recommend you look at the story of God and Uzzah. God commanded that no one to touch the ark, and then when the ox pulling the ark's cart stumbled, Uzzah put his hand out to steady the ark. Then God killed him. So, know that I ordered no one to touch the ark and I also ordered that I not be slandered as diseased. So you might think there will be some exonerating circumstances on the day of my wrath but the truth is that I will probably go back through my 4chan logs and categorically put to death everyone who implied that I am diseased, and I will no more look at why they did it than I looked at Uzzah's reason for putting his hand on the ark. FYI.

Helene has this whole little toolset which she says are for her "blackheads" but its obviously for the botfly farm she keeps in her basement. Helene and her botflies are also the meme behind Bill and his moths in Silence of the Lambs.

>>12066557
no

>>12066594
Both of them are me. I am also Jealous.

>>12066618
That's pretty convenient to be god.
I myself am the devil. And I too love the truth.

>>12066632
>I myself am the devil.
Your ancestors must be so proud.

>>12066635
My ancestor is the void.
It's yours too.
From the void stems everything. You, me, the questions that put us into motion, the truth we so seek.

>>12066662
>>12066635
>>12066632
SCHIZO FIGHT!

>>12066549
yeah it's pretty sad he used to be a normal kind dude and now he's turned into some racist crazy fuck

>>12066692
I'm actually one of the few Nietzsche Übermensch.
I can see why you would confuse it with mere schizophrenia.

>>12066662
Is that a collage of a cat getting hurt?

I think I see a flaw in your thinking when you say that the void put the question into motion. it looks like you put all your money on causality without looking at the big picture of retrocausality, which, as someone I know is fond of saying, is like not seeing the forest for the trees. Anyways, what is you legal name with respect to the United States of America Corporation. Post face.

WOW, I put a lot of effort into this one! Post face.

>>12066730
Well, for years he claimed to be descended from Hitler so it was only a matter of time until something like that video appeared.

>>12066733
Don't talk to me. Tooker is the OG schizo. For all I know you are just some miserable larper who should off himself. Tooker has publications, a long internet track-record (Reddit, youtube, Facebook, etc.), schizo-graffiti, and even IRL schizo outbursts on video.

Talk to me when you have 10% of what Tooker has. If you want me to believe you aren't larping then start making Reddit threads, emailing mathematicians, and calling people the n-word on video. Otherwise, get the fuck out. Tooker is the resident schizo and I fucking hate when larpers get mixed in HIS threads. No one thinks you are funny. You are retarded. I recommend suicide.

>>12066730
Lol at these pictures. That's my "i don't want to smile for your 900th picture of me by myself" smile for when Helene was always begging me to let her take pictures of me. Who knows what sick shit she was doing with them. My real smile looks much better, and you DEFINITELY posted my deliberate fake smile.

There's probably photographers who published entire photographic autobiographies that have less pictures of themselves standing in front of the camera alone than there are of me.

Post face!

>claims to love the truth
>posts as namefag anon
>won't say name
>won't post face
>complains about LARPS

My anal implants are acting up but somehow this time I'm liking it.

>>12066763
Back story on tooker's SWAT arrest? Did he really attempt burglary?

>>12066773
>>12066791
You were much more handsome in the Twitter photos

>>12058412
Algorithms and proofs are equivalent.

>>12066844
Tooker obtained some money under mysterious circumstances. He claims that he got a tax return for a wrong high amount. He used that money for the initial 3-month payment for a lease on an apartment. Here Tooker probably had lucked out and had the chance to stabilize his life as I'm sure that getting a stable income, even if tiny, could have saved him from homelessness forever. And he even had the money for 3 months to prepare for a job interview in Subway or something like that. However, his schizophrenia prevented him from taking these rational steps. Instead, he spent those 3 months shitposting on vixra and 4chan until the next payment was due. When he failed to pay, the owner of the apartment tried to talk it out with him but as you can imagine Tooker had his usual outbursts of "I'm God and I am going to rape your daughters and torture you". In 4chan no one cares but IRL the owner took Tooker to court where the judge ordered that the owner could evict Tooker. After getting the legal right to kick Tooker the fuck out obviously the owner proceeded but when the man you want to evict is a lunatic who says he'll kill your descendants you obviously just call the police to deal with it. When the police learned of the situation they considered Tooker to have a high probability of violence so instead of sending a poor officer to deal with it, they sent an entire SWAT team to get Tooker the fuck out. Which they did.

As you can imagine Tooker resisted and was arrested.

>>12066844
Tooker obtained some money under mysterious circumstances. He claims that he got a tax return for a wrong high amount. He used that money for the initial 3-month payment for a lease on an apartment. Here Tooker probably had lucked out and had the chance to stabilize his life as I'm sure that getting a stable income, even if tiny, could have saved him from homelessness forever. And he even had the money for 3 months to prepare for a job interview in Subway or something like that. However, his schizophrenia prevented him from taking these rational steps. Instead, he spent those 3 months shitposting on vixra and 4chan until the next payment was due. When he failed to pay, the owner of the apartment tried to talk it out with him but as you can imagine Tooker had his usual outbursts of "I'm God and I am going to rape your daughters and torture you". In 4chan no one cares but IRL the owner took Tooker to court where the judge ordered that the owner could evict Tooker. After getting the legal right to kick Tooker the fuck out obviously the owner proceeded but when the man you want to evict is a lunatic who says he'll kill your descendants you obviously just call the police to deal with it. When the police learned of the situation they considered Tooker to have a high probability of violence so instead of sending a poor officer to deal with it, they sent an entire SWAT team to get Tooker the fuck out. Which they did.

As you can imagine Tooker resisted and was arrested.

Shit, now I realize my RH proof is retarded nonsense, maybe I should kill myself?
Reply with a "Yes please!" If you want me, the Tooker, to kill myself or be damned to 10 more years of me shitting up threads.

>>12066912
Holy shit this guy had to be totally demonic for the police to be afraid.

>>12066827
Ouch. You're quick in your conclusions Tooker.
Maybe I the devil had pressing matters, like sustaining the organic body.
You know my name, as for my face, I fear it has nothing to do with the truth.

As for you mistaking my philosophy with misplaced faith in causality, rest assured that this is not the case.
Causality is a convenient illusion. To the sharpest minds, causality doesn't resist the acid of logic, which strips it of all its substance, merely using the fact that we only experience one time frame at a time, and can't rigorously prove there's a before and an after.

>>12066992
What is your name then? Are you in this picture: >>12066452? I got the name God when I was a baby. What name did you get when you were a baby? It sure as fuck wasn't Devil. Some devil if you're afraid of the FBI, amirite? If you look like Red Skull, go ahead and post it. Why play word games? If you are who you say, then you're writing silly word games into the story between you and I because you're afraid of the FBI, or whatever? That's not very devilish... or is it supremely devilish? Post name. Post face.

I'd guess but I don't want to guess the wrong person and then have them be like, "Motherfucker, you think I AM the devil?!?!?"

>>12066912
I got the right refund. My withholding was done as iff I was going to be in the 35% bracket. Since I only worked one month in 2017, I ended up in the 10% bracket and got a big refund. It was after I got out of jail that I replenished my funds "mysteriously." I was hoping very strongly that I would get a stable income before my money ran out but it did not. Even if it would have saved me from homelessness, I would still have been my enemy's slave trapped in the Antarctica slave hole segregated from any realistic shot at ever being able to ply my trade gainfully. In Antarctica, everyone is an idiot.

>schizophrenia prevented him from taking these rational steps.
That's not right. I quit my $100k job where I was only having to put in about 25 hrs/wk because I was sick of wage cucking. Being homeless didn't make $8hr suddenly seem appealing while $100k wasn't.

>he spent those 3 months shitposting on vixra and 4chan
I invented the time circuit
[Time Arrow Spinors for the Modified Cosmological Model
https://vixra.org/abs/1807.0454]
that summer, solved the Yang--Mills mass gap problem, and I proved the limits of sine and cosine at infinity. I was extremely productive. Did that productivity do anything besides add to my eternal glory? No, it did not! However, the time circuit might be the foundation of that glory more than any other thing I've done.

>owner of the apartment tried to talk it out with him
False

>ordered that the owner could evict Tooker.
False. The judge ordered that I should be served an eviction notice by the marshals but the Antarctica marshals never served me. Since I was never given the due process of service of the notice, my legal residency was never terminated. They whole rest of your post is wrong. There were no interaction with the "owner."

>they sent an entire SWAT team to get Tooker the fuck out
They sent SWAT because I didn't open the door when the regular cops knocked on it. Regular cops don't break down doors.

>>12066992
Also, I think you can use the thermodynamic arrow of time to prove the existence of distinct regimes: before and after. It's causation that's hard to nail down.

>>12067072
I'm the text you're reading.
I'm the devil in that I'm inside your brain, triggering neurons around. Tricking you, deceiving you, starving you for answers, a name, a face, the truth.
But the truth doesn't have a name or a face, Tooker.
It has all faces. And when you have all faces, you have none.

And just like that, the devil vanished.

>>12067115
>I got the right refund
True, thanks for the clarification.
>I quit my $100k job where I was only having to put in about 25 hrs/wk because I was sick of wage cucking
Jesus fucking Christ. YOU QUIT? There is no fucking way you quit. And what you feel now? You are HOMELESS. You have to live with other degenerates. Couldn't you just wagecuck on research on the side? God damn.
>I invented the time circuit
Also known as academic shitposting.
>Antarctica
Antarctica is not even in the US retard. Your schizophrenia is getting worse.
>They sent SWAT because I didn't open the door when the regular cops knocked on it.
Thanks for the clarification.

If I had nothing better to do I'd write a biography of you. Maybe when you finally break and do a mass shooting or something of interest there would be some financial incentive in writing one.

>>12066452

>>12054629
Who tf are "the elites"? Do you have any idea how academics work? Every living mathematician would love to be the person to solve it but they cant because it's a hard fucking problem.

>>12055903
If you're Tooker, we printed out a copy of your "proof of RH" and pinned it to the bulletin board in our hall because it's so hilarious to us. You live in a fantasy land dude

>>12067144
>Who tf are "the elites"?
You know, the people who control the world.

who the fuck is Helene please tell me it's not this guy's poor mother

>>12067144
Which paper did you print? I've written like five of them about RH. I recommend pic related
[ Quick Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0236 ]
for pinning in the hall. However, if you want to look a proof without an unsupported proposition, then I recommend this one:
[ Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237 ]

This one is also nice and doesn't use a proposition but neither does it support infinity hat as strongly as Fractional Distance.
[ Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030 ]

Here's the original proof which I wrote in some language I had made up for something else I was working on in physics
[ On The Riemann Zeta Function
https://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073 ]

>>12067236
are you going to try to work on any new problems? p = np? collatz conjcture? prime factorisation?

>>12067236
is this a /sci/ meme, or just mega autism? both?

>>12067236
Tooker, it is well known that [math] \mathbb{R} [/math] has the archimedean property.
(Proof here: https://www.math.upenn.edu/~kazdan/508F14/Notes/archimedean.pdf))

If you don't know, the Archimedean property states that for any two real numbers [math] x,y > 0 [/math] there exists [math] n \in \mathbb{N} [/math] such that [math] ny > x [/math].

You claim that [math] x = \hat{\infty} - 1 [/math] is real. Also [math] y = 1 [/math] is real.

Theorem: There is no [math] n \in \mathbb{N} [/math] such that [math] ny > x [/math] if x and y are the ones given above.

Proof:
Given that [math] y = 1 [/math] it would be necessary that there exist a natural number [math] n [/math] such that [math] n > \hat{\infty} - 1 [/math]. However, by your Proposition 1.8 there is no such [math] n [/math] which satisfies this.

Therefore your Theorem 1.9 is in direct contradiction with the Archimedean property. QED. Because the Archimedean property is known to be true, Theorem 1.9 must be false.

>>12067209
She is my many times rapist. She told me she was mother. She may be that, or she may be my sister, or maybe not even that. The main thing I am pretty sure about between her and I is that she is my many times rapist and the Bible calls her the Whore of Babylon. Helene used her disguisecraft to expel me from college. She impersonated the student justice administrator and then signed a form that said a pair of independent rape allegations together with my categorical, and no other evidence at all, was a "preponderance of evidence." Schools don't use the reasonable doubt standard of criminal courts. Even then, Helene wrongfully found than an accusation and denial, and absolutely nothing else, together form a preponderance in support of the accusation. She watched me work on that PhD for nine years, and then she hit me with the big nasty rape dick which is pretty much her favorite thing to do.

More likely than Helene being my mother, we both have the same mother: Elizabeth Windsor. Helene was born on the day of Elizabeth's coronation after she had already been queen for about a year. Likely they were waiting for her to stop being pregnant for the coronation photos. You can see Elizabeth is very chesty there on that day: June 2, 1953. Since we have Romanov blood through Anastasia on our respective fathers' sides, who may be the same father, we both have a better place in the line of UK succession than any of Elizabeth's children with Phillip. Helene hates it that my balls put me in front of her in that line. The whole current tranny plague in western society comes from Helene and her cult trying to rewrite the history of the universe so that she can claim to be the older male heir simply because she "identifies as the older male heir." I think she ought to identify as an attack helicopter but she's got this giant chip on her shoulder over not having any testicular fortitude.

>>12067295
Bro you need serious intervention this sounds like pure schizo ramblings

>>12067260
Not really. I'm going back to physics for my next few papers. I do not have much of an interest in pure math. I only looked at RH because I thought it might help me avoid being homeless. I'm not feeling very motivated right now to do new work. Not having a peaceful place to work IS A MAJOR impediment. I'm getting sexually and psychologically all the time at the desks I can do some work on right now. It's not conducive to the way I like to work in peace and quiet. I don't feel like studying right now so I'm mostly communicating my previous results since I still haven't done as masterful of job of
>>12066239
as I would like. I fucking BTFOed al the other steps in the method but I still didn't really BTFO " doing science" because I have a hangup at the end of the process. I have a ton of stuff to write but I'm not motivated to work on it right now. However, I have like ten good papers in mind to write about all sort of good physics stuff. That work will go literally 10,000 times faster if I can do it with collaborators and I guess I'm procrastinating waiting for the collaboration bonus multiplier to kick in. Why take three years to do now what I can do in three weeks later? (A rhetorical question that summarizes my feelings about working in isolation.) Trying to do a better job of communicating my previous results is the best thing I could do to hasten the collaborative phase, IMO.

>>12067316
Tooker is far gone, my dude.

>>12067381
>Not having a peaceful place to work IS A MAJOR impediment.
Hence why you shouldn't have quit your 100k job.

cont.

Are my enemies continuing to sabotage all my work by making sure I can never actually do the scientific method in the usual way, by never being able to communicate my results to the broad community? Probably so. In that case, I am only working on increasing the crimes for which I will put their children to death. Even then, I am more motivated to do that than to try to concentrate on learning while getting my balls electrocuted every minute and having someone loudly bang on my wall every time I have to scribble out some arithmetic I messed up on my scratch paper.

Are they sabotaging my ability to ply my trade by completing the method which is my vocation? Probably so! That's exactly why they expelled from college to begin with after I had already had an amazing dark energy result which should have made my entire research career. They fucked me out of that, and then they fucked me out of the PhD, and then the shipped me to the slave hole so I'm surrounded by idiots. Indeed, I think this October 2009 $1M payment to Paul "Manna fort" Manafort was probably about paying the guy who was stealing my semen to pay the bribes to suppress my September 2009 dark energy result.
>Manafort firm received Ukraine ledger payout
>The amount of the invoice — $750,000— and the payment date of Oct. 14, 2009, matches one entry on the ledger indicating payments to Manafort
>https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/12/manafort-firm-received-ukraine-ledger-payout.html

Remember the freezer in Manfort's storage unit? When they raided it, they said they found a freezer inside. It was full of my stolen semen. If you look for it now, all references to the freezer in the storage locker have been deleted from the internet and you can only find mentions to the freezer in his house. Overall Manna Fort was working with Helene and her husband to steal my semen to make a secret heir such that they could skip me in own inheritance separate from my place in the line of succession.

>>12067421
Tooker, why do you only include things into your lore after they become part of the mainstream conversation? All of that shit happened in 2009 but you never said anything about it until now after Donald Trump started an investigation on the matter and it became public interest.

Could it be that you are just schizophrenic and every time you hear about a new happening in the world your mind twists it into including you so that you can pretend to be an important player in global affairs?

>>12067283
No, you are wrong and stupid. Section 6.3 in the paper is called "The Archimedes Property of Real Numbers" and I prove it is preserved in neighborhood of infinity. The Archimedes property appears in Euclid's elements. It's an important property in real analysis because it has been the standard of what real numbers are for thousands of years. All of the modern restatements of the property, such as the one you cite, implicitly assume that all number are real numbers are in the neighborhood of the origin. If you cite anything other than Euclid to say what the Archimedes property is, then I'll call you a charlatan, a pseud, and a liar. Your proof fails because the thing you claim is the Archimedes property is not it.

>>12067316
Trust me, as soon as I can get Mr. 46's thieving finger away from the nuclear button and I can get my own finger into its rightful place, then I will make the biggest intervention of all time. The sun will not set before I shake the Earth.

>>12067388
Which Tooker are you talking about? It's quite likely that there is a Tooker or two here: >>12067139

>>12067388
You are wrong! I had no peace then either! I have more unrest now, but I had no peace then either. Indeed, I suspect the giant increase in my gangstalking since I started that job in the summer of 2016 is because the true "anti-Trump insurance policy" was the fraud paperwork Exide included in my hiring package. It probably said, "We have the right to hypnotize you, kidnap you, slice you, electrocute, and use your money to kill your friends and make your enemies rich, and we will we let their sons fuck our daughters and we'll use your semen to get them pregnant because your semen is so much better than their sons', but we'll only put women around you who think your dick is horrible and that your semen sucks, and we'll wagecuck you for about $10/hr while we sell you semen for millions or billions."

Quitting that job at Exide is at least a tie for the smarted thing I ever did. That movie "Get out" was made while I worked at Exide. Every single decoration in my apartment showed up as a prop in the movie. The protagonist's friend's name was Rod Williams: the name of my boss at Exide. The villains were using hypnosis to turn the guy's brain off all throughout the movie, and this is a BIG problem for me IRL. The movie was obviously made as a warning for me and I feel very good about having already quit a few weeks before the movie came out.

>>12067439
>you never said anything about it until now
That's not true. I have said it on 4chan many times. I put it my blog too, many times. Remember the Andy Six shit eating log meme? That was about my blog. It's not hosted any more but I have the HTML of the final state in a link below. My enemies deleted a lot of my posts, such as everything I wrote about the Las Vegas shooting. I don't have the original HTML. Below is just what I DLed before the hosting expired. I think the SCP Foundation maintains all the original files. One other thing about Trump I've written many times is that Barron is an abominable monster grown in the womb of Stormy Daniels with the stolen semen Trump got from Manafort, who stole it from me with the blessing of Helene and her husband. Greta is also one. and Bolsonaro's daughter. The whole thing with the Ukraine government getting overthrown was to make way for them to breed an entire race of proto-Ukrainians with my stolen semen.

Hi, I am Jon Tooker: the inventor of the time circuit...
https://pastebin.com/uHZrB238

Mundane events related to time travel.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1240030/pg1

John Titor, the Montauk Project, the e-Cat and Geometric Unity
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread966329/pg1

I am the anonymous physicist featured in the black hole article yesterday.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ukbz6/i_am_the_anonymous_physicist_featured_in_the/

30 Tooker Papers
https://gofile.io/d/IOOaMw

LOG (from the log meme, HTML only)
https://gofile.io/d/2z4MXm

Exide Docs
https://gofile.io/d/I1TCfU

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=u7Q6o_1559880838

Threads about my never-ending sexual torture:
https://ibb [doot] co/r7mdxfv
https://ibb [doot] co/6DMWz3H
https://ibb [doot] co/9HxL0S1
https://ibb [doot] co/yWk59b3
https://ibb [doot] co/y0PvJcN
https://ibb [doot] co/gj34xVj
https://ibb [doot] co/YXYrfNs
https://ibb [doot] co/p3cX0mk

>>12067476
>Section 6.3
I just read that. You do realize that if the magnitudes in [math] \textbf{Definition 4} [/math] of Book V of the elements are the same magnitudes being defined then you just have a circular argument? You'd literally be defining something by the properties of the thing you are defining.

That is why in modern definitions they use natural numbers to define the archimedean property of the reals. You can first define the naturals in a completely unrelated way to the geometric concept of reality. And with those natural 'magnitudes' defined you can go on, through a much more sophisticated process, define the 'magnitudes' of the reals. But if you just define the reals by themselves then you are going in circles and there is no ground to support the theory of the reals. You'd just be saying "the reals are a thing that does the things I want the reals to do" which is actually a pattern in all your publications so I'm not surprised.

In other words, you are just doing circular arguments over and over again.

>>12067495
>https://pastebin.com/uHZrB238

CTRL+F "Ukraine": 0 results

Yeah good job Tooker, you are retarded. I am not going to waste my time CTRL+F-ing the rest of your posts so either tell me which link has the mention about Ukraine or get fucked.

>>12067481
>"We have the right to hypnotize you, kidnap you, slice you, electrocute, and use your money to kill your friends and make your enemies rich, and we will we let their sons fuck our daughters and we'll use your semen to get them pregnant because your semen is so much better than their sons', but we'll only put women around you who think your dick is horrible and that your semen sucks, and we'll wagecuck you for about $10/hr while we sell you semen for millions or billions."

Amazing legal paperwork. Please refer me to the lawyer.

Beyond that, NO TOOKER. What the actual fuck? You were literally just a data monkey monkeying around. Your boss probably couldn't even remember your name and by now you don't even exist in his mind. You were an insignificant cog in that company. Stop pretending like you were actually the one thing around which every single event centers around. Even now you are even less than an insignificant cog. You are not even a cog anymore in the global economy so now you are just insignificant.

>>12067500
>you just have a circular argument?
I disagree. If you think I have a circular argument, cite the words I use which seem to form a circle to you. If you do not cite my word and if you do not also explain why you think those words form a circle, then I will not respond to you, or perhaps I will but only to mock how hard you failtroll. If you have a well-reasoned criticism, please put it verbose form for me to examine.

Euclid defines the naturals as "numbers" in book 7. What Euclid called magnitudes are what we call real numbers today.

> You'd just be saying "the reals are a thing that does the things I want the reals to do"
I didn't say that and you are not paraphrasing anything I wrote with that. If you want me to take you seriously, then cite my words in context and then carefully explain what you think the problem is. The thing you do here, falsely paraphrasing me and then arguing against yourself, is called "raising a straw man" and it is a kindergarden-level logical fallacy. Fail harder, fail guy... or better yet: don't fail and pose a well-formed criticism instead.

>>12067532
do you realize that the usual real numbers satisfy your "axiomatic" definition of real numbers?
do you realize that the usual rational numbers satisfy your "axiomatic" definition of real numbers?

>>12067516
My life got so fucking crazy after I quit Exide, I began to suspect they must have defrauded me somehow, like fraudulently hiring me as a Mossad agent or something without telling me. In October 2018, I went to Exide to try to get a copy of my hiring package. I told the HR man, Mr Gay, that I was alleging that they had defrauded me and I wanted to confirm that "all agreements" had been terminated when I terminated my employment in January 2017 (a day before I got brutally ass raped on an airplane and given a GIANT implant in my perineum.) Mr Gay was very lawyerly to only refer to the termination of "employment agreements." I kept saying, "Please talk to me about 'all agreements.' I am here because I think you defrauded my by inserting stuff into the hiring package other than the employment agreement I discussed with the hiring manager." Mr Gay was very careful to only assure me that my employment had been terminated. I already knew that since my pay had been cut off. He refused to give me the docs. He called the cops on me and issued me a CT notice against ever going back there. So I went to Exide to get confirmation that my agreements had been totally terminated and I was not able to confirm it.

The next day, Jamal "Cash O.G." Khashoggi went to the Saudi embassy to try to get his "divorce paperwork" and he got killed. IMO, I am the beneficiary of the Black Eagle Trust, which is wrongly called the Bank of the CIA, and they defrauded me at Exide to try to steal it from it me. This is what Helene and her friends were already trying to do with the semen monsters. They know that I am not evil like they are and I will kill them all. I will nuke Israel, the country they all love. I will kill all the semen monsters. I will stop their "aristocratic" torture parties and their slavery and MK Ultra, and they wanted to raise a semen monster which would turn out evil like them, and then skip me in my own inheritance to give it to him.

>>12067532
>please put it verbose form for me to examine

Pic related is the way you'd express that definition in modern terms. Let's for a moment pretend that it is not circular and that you are expressing a mathematical truth. We have that indeed for all real x,y there exist real z such that [math] zx > y [/math]. Furthermore if [math] x,y > 0 [/math] then [math] z > 0 [/math].

Then necessarily [math] \frac{1}{y} > \frac{1}{zx} [/math]. If we choose [math] y = \hat{\infty} - 1 [/math] then we'd have [math] 0 > \frac{1}{zx} [/math].

But there is no [math] z > 0 [/math] that may satisfy this inequality. If both [math] z,x [/math] are in the neighbourhood of 0 then we'd have that [math] 0 [/math] is larger than a positive number. If either of [math] z,x [/math] are in the neighbourhood of infinity then we would have the inequality [math] 0 > 0 [/math].

Thus your property is retarded Tooker.

>>12067551
Yes, certainly. The excessive fine nuance was in response to the many criticisms that what had been "usual" for thousands of years got thrown into the garbage about 100 years ago and that the "usual" thing now is the field axioms which are not satisfied in my analysis. I agree with you, however. The usual thing is the arithmetic and length that children can understand and it has nothing to do with the axioms of a complete ordered number field.

>>12067580
>Then necessarily
Please explain the reasoning by which you arrive at this necessary condition.

>>12067595
in your work, is every fact about real numbers proved from your axioms without using further assumptions ?

>>12067614
I would have to check that against a list of all the facts about real numbers before I could say. I'm a physicist only dipping his toe into pure math, and I would not ever deem to know "every fact about real numbers."

>>12067624
I'm asking if everything that you prove about real numbers in your work is proved from these axioms

>>12067632
I hope so. That was what I was trying to do. I haven't yet had any criticism of Fractional Distance that forced me out of my axioms. These were the axioms I came up with after getting feedback on about four previous papers I wrote, each building on the criticisms of the earlier incarnations of the definitions/axioms.

>>12067649
and you claim that (your) real numbers don't satisfy the archimedean property as stated on wikipedia. did you prove this from the axioms?

>>12067607
[math] a > b \implies \frac{1}{b} > \frac{1}{a} [/math] is basic arithmetic Tooker. If you can't handle basic arithmetic then I think that even before you learn how to properly take limits you should consider Khan Academy K-12 math education.

>i can prove RH so long as i work in an inconsistent system

>>12067655
I believe so. Pic related makes the proof by way of Axiom 5.2.5 defining multiplication.

sounds like you're doing faulty math. you say that your axioms imply that the archimedean property doesn't hold in >>12067689. however the usual real numbers (which satisfy the archimedean property) also satisfy your axioms as you've acknowledged in >>12067595. this is a clear contradiction. sounds like you're doing faulty math.

>>12067676
You are wrong, shitcunt. That's the basic arithmetic of numbers in the neighborhood of the origin, but not in the neighborhood of infinity. I can easily disprove your implication with Axiom 5.2.11. Let [math] a=\widehat\infty-1\quad,\quad a=\widehat\infty-2[/math]. This establishes the condition a>b. By Axiom 5.2.11, we have
[eqn] \frac{1}{a}1=0\quad,\quad\frac{1}{b}=0\quad\implies\quad\frac{1}{a}=\frac{1}{b} [/eqn]
This refutes the implication you have used as an example.

>>12067684
What do you feel is an inconsistency? Please cite one or all of them by article number and then clearly explain in context what you believe is inconsistent about the article or articles.

>>12067723
>That's the basic arithmetic of numbers in the neighborhood of the origin
But look at your own statement of the property. You say it holds for all real numbers. Why didn't you qualify that statement for the real numbers in the neighborhood of the origin? You are now contradicting yourself.

Beyond that, if your numbers have an entirely different arithmetic then what even makes you think that when people pose the RH they think about your made-up hat numbers? God damn, you are so retarded. So far I've been operating under the assumption that what you cared for the most was adhering to the concept of real numbers held by Riemann when he posed the conjecture. BUT RIEMANN WAS ALSO WORKING UNDER NORMAL ARITHMETIC.

Now you claim your numbers have an arithmetic completely foreign to what Riemann would have imagined. Therefore you are wrong by your own standards now.

>>12067718
>your axioms imply that the archimedean property doesn't hold in
You are wrong, shitcunt. What I said was that the thing on Wikipedia is NOT the Archimedes property of real numbers. That property is recorded in Euclid's book.

>>12067723
holy shit guys, Took finally admitted that [math]
\hat{\infty} - 1 = \hat{\infty}-2 [/math]

>>12067738
>But look at your own statement of the property.
Which property? Which statement of it? If there's something you want me to look at, why not include it in your post, shitcunt? I labelled everything with a conveniently citable article number. Since you have done what I said I would not entertain, I will not entertain your inquiry.

>>12067655
>>and you claim that (your) real numbers don't satisfy the archimedean property as stated on wikipedia. did you prove this from the axioms?
>I believe so

>>12067740
so is the statement which appears on wikipedia under the name "archimedean property" satisfied by your real numbers or not ?

>>12067758
>I labelled everything with a conveniently citable article number.
>my shitty ass fart papers are "convenient" cuz they got numbers
your shitty papers are impossible to use, they dont follow any form of logic or consistency

>>12067746
I would explain why I did not do that, but since you have neither (1) chosen not to call me by a name, nor (2) chosen not to call me by name, I will not entertain the point you raise.

>>12067758
See pic in >>12067580
If in your made-up numbers arithmetic has different basic laws then you can't even use basic arithmetic symbols without specifying under which paradigm they are operating.

Now answer this:
>Beyond that, if your numbers have an entirely different arithmetic then what even makes you think that when people pose the RH they think about your made-up hat numbers? God damn, you are so retarded. So far I've been operating under the assumption that what you cared for the most was adhering to the concept of real numbers held by Riemann when he posed the conjecture. BUT RIEMANN WAS ALSO WORKING UNDER NORMAL ARITHMETIC.

I got you Tooker and you know that. That is why you don't want to asnwer.

Hey Tooker, is [math] \widehat{\infty}^2 = \widehat{\infty} [/math]

>>12067746
I would explain why I did not do that, but since you have neither (1) chosen not to call me by a name, nor (2) chosen to call me by my name, I will not entertain the point you raise.

>>12067764
it is not

>>12067777
You seem to be citing a Remark article as a formal statement of a property. That is improper. If I am not understanding you, please make a post with everything you want me to look at it in it. If you do, I will look at it and answer you. I never use constructions of the form
>see earleir stupid thig I wasn'tcler about but for said it was to make you wrong because it's not usualy consistent with basic obviousness
I expect you not to use that construction either. If you are making a post something you want me to consider, I will be happy to do so if you include all of it contextually in your verbose post.

>>12067807
>it is not
do you prove this fact from your axioms ?

>>12067789
Why ask my opinion about stuff if you don't read the paper I wrote about it?

>>12067807
In >>12067723 you admit that the real numbers at the neighborhood of infinity do not follow the same laws as the numbers in the neighborhood of 0. However, these arithmetic laws in the neighborhood of infinity were never mentioned or used by Riemann, nor any of his contemporaries, nor anyone before him, nor anyone in modernity until you came along. Then how can you claim to be adhering to the original statement of Riemann when your numbers have entirely distinct arithmetic?

Im trying to figure out how the fuck im able to use [math] \widehat{\infty} [/math], but you never actually define it
you only say that its magnitude is infinite without saying anything else

>>12067812
so if i write x as inf hat, then any real number may be written in the form [math] a + bx + cx^2 + dx^3 + ... [/math]
sick

>>12067811
I think you are asking me if I proved in the paper that pic related is not a property satisfied by R as I have constructed it. I did not prove it in the paper from the axioms. However, I can do it from the axioms here. Let
[eqn] x=1\quad,\quad y=\widehat\infty-2 [/eqn]
For any [math]n\in\mathbb{N}[/math], we have xn=n. By Axiom 5.2.14, xn<y. Therefore, pic related property is not satisfied in general.

>>12067838
so you agree that your axioms of real numbers imply that the property in pic related >>12067838 is not satisfied

>>12067815
>you admit that the real numbers at the neighborhood of infinity do not follow the same laws as the numbers in the neighborhood of 0
No I don't. All real numbers follow the axioms in Section 5.2. Again, you've chosen to "raise a straw man." By the axioms of section 5.2, the implication you gave holds in the neighborhood of the origin but does not hold in the neighborhood of infinity. Fail harder, shitcunt.

> neighborhood of infinity were never mentioned or used by Riemann
The Riemann hypothesis was never mentioned by Gauss or Euler, or any of their contemporaries, and yet somehow we still think it is important. How do you think that works?

>>12067835
I explain "how to use it" in Section 5.

>then any real number may be written in the form
you can but all the coefficients besides a and b will be zero.

>>12067848
I do agree, redundantly, for a third time now, and twice explicitly.

>>12067891
then you're doing faulty math. you claim that your axioms imply a certain statement, yet you acknowledge that there exists a structure which satisfies both the axioms and the statement.

>>12067885
>All real numbers follow the axioms in Section 5.2
Were these axioms even known or used by Riemann?

>The Riemann hypothesis was never mentioned by Gauss or Euler, or any of their contemporaries, and yet somehow we still think it is important. How do you think that works?
That's not the point. Let me remind you that the usual argument we give you for why you don't get the million dollars is that "mathematicians don't consider what you call real numbers to be real numbers". Your defense is always "these definitions of real come from the 20th century and thus were not what Riemann meant. I am following what Riemann knew and meant when he posed the conjecture". And now I am telling you that you have admitted that this is not the case, as you are using laws of arithmetic that would have been completely foreign to him.

What gives?

>>12067891
>I explain "how to use it" in Section 5.
you cant do that without properly defining it first
youve said its magnitude is infinite, thats all youve done

pic rel is the dumbest fucking thing ive read all year

>>12067897
>you claim that your axioms imply a certain statement,
Which statement are you talking about? In which article did I make the claim you cite?

>>12067898
I think you know that your question "was the stuff you wrote down last year" known in the mid-19th century is completely stupid.

> that you have admitted that this is not the case, as you are using laws of arithmetic that would have been completely foreign to him.
I didn't admit it. If I admitted it, then quote me admitting it. You are improperly paraphrasing me again because apparently the only troll in a troll bag is a straw man. Hilbert rewrote, extended, and clarified Euclidean geometry in his 1899 paper and I rewrote, extended, and clarified it in my paper. Riemann would not have known Hilbert's axioms of geometry, but he would have recognized them as following the program of Euclid. I also followed the program of Euclid. Riemann himself followed Euclid when he developed Riemannian geometry as an extension of Euclidean geometry. We are all using Euclid's geometric approach to numbers. None of us use the 20th century algebraic approach. The approaches of Cantor, Dedekind, and the field axioms is outside of the program of Euclid.

> I am following what Riemann knew
yes

> I am following what Riemann knew and meant
no

>What gives?
The answer to this vague question must be something related to your raising straw man after straw man after straw man after straw man.

>>12068015

>>12067495
>30 Tooker Papers
>LOG (from the log meme, HTML only)
>Exide Docs
I see these uploads have disappeared. I made new uploads:

30 Tooker Papers
https://gofile.io/d/X2uKgx

LOG (from the log meme, HTML only)
https://gofile.io/d/FqbLXa

Exide Docs
https://gofile.io/d/TmnC21

>>12068067

>>12068015
Tooker, you extended the real numbers but not in the way you think. If your new numbers don't follow the same arithmetic rules then literally all of the work preceding the Riemann Hypothesis would be invalid for your numbers. All the way from the field axioms up to the concept of analytic continuation. Your proof, therefore, is of no interest to mathematics.

This actually reminds me about how in quaternions quadratic polynomials have infinitely many solutions but these solutions are meaningless compared to the solutions in the complex numbers which actually say a lot about the polynomial itself. This is just the same. The Zeta function has infinitely many solutions in the neighborhood of infinity but these solutions say nothing about the function itself.

>>12068073
And in which paper you mentioned Ukraine? You are lying Tooker.

>>12068272
>If your new numbers don't follow the same arithmetic rules then literally all of the work preceding the Riemann Hypothesis would be invalid for your numbers.
Luckily for me then, my construction of R does not overturn any of the classical rules of arithmetic. All of the usual rules fall out of my axioms in the limit of vanishing big parts.

>say nothing about the function itself.
It literally says where the function is equal to zero. Also, if "meaningless" results are to be discounted then we can ignore 99.99% of the math paper that get published. I think you mean, "This isn't the most important math paper of the last 100 years." I don't know if it is or if it isn't. If someone parlays my result in a prime factorization shortcut, pic related, then it is the most important.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ie00tGi_io&t=55s

>>12068284
I wrote about it in here:
https://gofile.io/d/FqbLXa

>>12068272
>If your new numbers don't follow the same arithmetic rules then literally all of the work preceding the Riemann Hypothesis would be invalid for your numbers.
Luckily for me then, my construction of R does not overturn any of the classical rules of arithmetic. All of the usual rules fall out of my axioms in the limit of vanishing big parts.

>say nothing about the function itself.
It literally says where the function is equal to zero. Also, if "meaningless" results are to be discounted then we can ignore 99.99% of the math paper that get published. I think you mean, "This isn't the most important math paper of the last 100 years." I don't know if it is or if it isn't. If someone parlays my result in a prime factorization shortcut, pic related, then it is the most important.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ie00tGi_io&t=55

>>12068284
I wrote about it in here:
https://gofile.io/d/FqbLXa

>>12068362
>It literally says where the function is equal to zero.
But that's useless because we care about the zeroes that have an implication for the function itself. All your zeroes say is "at infinity the function vanishes". Great work Tooker, you found out that 1 over infinity is 0. It took you 40 years to figure out what most math students realize in calc 1.

>Also, if "meaningless" results are to be discounted then we can ignore 99.99% of the math paper that get published.
True and indeed 99.9% of math papers don't get 1 million dollar prizes. However, even these useless papers are of more merit than yours and thus are actually published.

>>12068362
>I wrote about it in here:
I am not going to download a .zip with all of your pedo shit. Post the exact.pdf or .txt where I can do CTRL+F "Ukraine" and find the mention. If it is truly in that .zip then just pick the file out and upload it on its own.

>>12068384
>But that's useless because we care about the zeroes that have an implication for the function itself.
Ok, shitcunt. Good one!

>Post the exact.pdf or .txt where I can do CTRL+F "Ukraine" and find the mention
no

>>12068449
>no
Yeah Tooker you have never mentioned Ukraine until now. Your own schizophrenia is now contradicting itself. You are retarded.

>>12068482
What makes you think I never mentioned it, shitcunt?

>>12068491
Your post history. The fact that none of your files posted before had a single mention of Ukraine and the fact that now you post a shady .zip and won't just simply post the text document itself where you supposedly mentioned the Ukraine happenings way before they were of public interest. Go back to getting your balls electrocuted.

I unzipped it. You can grep it or something but I'm not digging through it.

NEWS:
https://gofile.io/d/tjUkoY

BLOG:
https://gofile.io/d/aRmTV1

>>12068502
Post the one file where we can all CTRL+F Ukraine, read what you supposedly said years ago, and then we can all believe you. Otherwise, go get your anus electrocuted.

>>12068498
Are you posting the wrong answer on the internet on purpose to get the correct answer? I think it' not likely that you read everything I ever posted on the internet.

>>12068509
I've read everything you've posted on 4chan. Your LinkedIn and some of your Reddit posts too. Also some of your blog posts. Never have I seen you talking about Ukraine until today and given that you are a schizophrenic lunatic who consistently repeats the same points and topics over and over again I'd doubt that I would have missed this given that you knew about since 2009.

If you say I am wrong then just post the text document where you mention it with clear timestamps and sources. You really don't get tired of being called a retard.

>>12068509

>>12068507
>Post the one file where we can all CTRL+F Ukraine, read what you supposedly said years ago, and then we can all believe you.
no

I unzipped the other ones too:

30 Tooker papers
https://gofile.io/d/Dj8q3n

Exide Docs
https://gofile.io/d/GW98BU

>>12068521
Get fucked Tooker. Post the one document or get fucked.

>>12068519
>Also some of your blog posts.
If you had read the rest of them, you would have seen it. If it didn't get deleted by the time I DLed the HTML, you can grep it in the files I just uploaded.

>>12068525
It would be so easy for you to just post it. You are lying Tooker. You just insert yourself into every happening to make yourself seem important because really you know that you are a worthless sack of shit who has never accomplished anything and will die having no impact in the world.

>>12068523
if you DL the files to one folder, you can all grep it.

>>12068528
Or you do it, CTRL+F and then extract the one document it is at and then post it. If it is so easy then just do it.

>>12068527
I have no idea which one it is in, or if it is any of them since a lot of my posts got deleted by the time I archived the site. SCP Foundation has the originals, I believe, ask them to CTRL+F it for you. I literally don't give a shit and you obviously don't either.

>>12068532
I don't know how grep works in windows

>>12068533
You are a fucking retard Tooker. The SCP Foundation is also a fake website for aspiring authors who like to take it up the ass.

>>12068539
I guess you know more about it than I do, then.

>>12068542
There's not a single topic in the world such that a Toddler knows less than you.

>>12054629
Can't one team just assume it's false, another assumes it's true, and they just work from there?

>>12068015
>Which statement are you talking about? In which article did I make the claim you cite?
S: For every [math]x, y \in \mathbb{R}[/math] s.t. [math]x < y[/math] there exists [math]n \in \mathbb{N}[/math] s.t. [math]nx > y[/math].

You acknowledge in >>12067891 that your axioms imply negation of S. On the other hand you acknowledge in >>12067595 that the usual real numbers (i.e. the ones defined e.g. by Cauchy sequence) satisfy your axioms. But the usual real numbers also satisfy S. This is a contradiction.

>>12069106
>This is a contradiction.
You are wrong, shitcunt. Your logic has a big hole in it. The axioms are such that the "usual" real numbers are only the numbers in the neighborhood of the origin. These satisfy S and also satisfy my axioms. The axioms, however, are such that not every real number is in the neighborhood of the origin. The numbers in the neighborhood of infinity satisfy my axioms and do not satisfy S. The conclusion you reach is completely stupid.

>your axioms imply negation of S
yes

>usual real numbers (i.e. the ones defined e.g. by Cauchy sequence) satisfy your axioms
In the way that quantum mechanics is the low dimensional limit of quantum field theory even while quantum field theory has more to it than just quantum mechanics, the "usual" reals are the low big part limit of the axioms even while the axioms admit more numbers than just the "usual" ones.

>This is a contradiction.
For this to be true, the "usual" reals would have to be the entire set of reals generated by my axioms. That is false. There is no contradiction. Either you are stupid or the ArgueBot that you wrote is like a five year old who can't understand that if all zips are zoodles, there might still be zoodles that aren't zips.

I have answered all of your questions. Now you answer mine: If all Type A objects are Type B objects, might there be Type B objects that are not Type A objects? Please study this question carefully and give me your well-reasoned response and also describe the thinking you used to arrive at your conclusion.

Wanna know another secret? They used the time circuit to send the anti-encryption software to my enemies' enemies long before any of you found out about it.
>naked the whole time

>>12068520
BLOG
12-24-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/3d97e90f
12-13-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/b2c09d36
11-27-18a.html https://pastebin.pl/view/5af310bf
11-23-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/fc08ee1e
11-09-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/4edc4be7
11-02-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/da8aff2c
10-17-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/929e89f6
10-14-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/a01d2a4e
10-07-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/209d4925
09-26-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/39e67dca
09-21-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/23e69af7
08-18-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/da979f76
08-08-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/face0440 face
07-28-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/6692c2c5
07-26-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/640df5b3
07-15-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/d95acf66 deny
07-09-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/690f1d2f
06-14-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/bc5d71f3
05-17-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/c2fdf0fc Si, FDF
04-26-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/c9d72043
03-16-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/4eb5fb8e
02-27-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/67bfba09
02-02-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/f12ce14a
01-18-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/8ec91fbc

>>12068520
NEWS
01-20-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/57fc2c0d
02-08-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/ec70ff5d
03-15-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/2ed480c0
04-19-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/0d494f4c
05-17-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/5fc05afc
06-18-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/ba624a3b
07-16-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/c0e3b15d
07-24-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/4c783b84
07-29-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/98a3ef6b
08-10-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/86bdccfc
08-31-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/9252619e
09-15-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/4e02c935
09-23-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/1a84c03a
10-03-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/f3ba6056
10-10-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/5c18a24a
10-22-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/20e0df6a
11-04-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/da2578e7
11-05-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/24ff2c90
11-24-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/79a918b7
11-27-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/c943777c
12-20-17.html https://pastebin.pl/view/bf5fb414
12-30-18.html https://pastebin.pl/view/166f8f82

>>12069389
A structure as a whole either satisfies a set of axioms or it doesn't. Consider for example the definition of a group as a set with a binary operation satisfying three axioms. [math]\mathbb{Z}[/math] with addition is a group. [math]\mathbb{N}[/math] with addition is not a group. In the latter case, saying that the axioms are satisfied but they imply there are more elements is meaningless. This structure is not a group, because not all elements of [math]\mathbb{N}[/math] have additive inverses in [math]\mathbb{N}[/math]. The axioms are not satisfied.

Let's denote [math]\mathbb{R}_{\text{usual}}[/math] the real numbers defined via equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences, i.e. the widely accepted definition of real numbers. Does [math]\mathbb{R}_{\text{usual}}[/math] as a standalone structure satisfy the axioms in section 2.1. of https://vixra.org/pdf/1906.0237v3.pdf? If not, which axioms are violated?

>If all Type A objects are Type B objects, might there be Type B objects that are not Type A objects?
yes

>>12070005
> Consider for example the definition of a group as a set with a binary operation satisfying three axioms. Z with addition is a group.
I'm not familiar with that. I have never studied modern algebra, I have no interest in it, and you are only introducing it to create needless complication.

>Let's denote [math]\mathbb{R}_{\text{usual}}[/math] the real numbers defined via equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences
Let's not. If you want to discuss my work, then use my notation. There is a symbol in there for what you're calling R-USUAL. If you can demonstrate to me that you know which symbol I'm talking about, then I will tell you about its relationship to the axioms in Section 2.1.

>yes
Then do you agree that if some of the numbers given by the axioms (numbers in the neighborhood of the origin) satisfy what you have called Proposition S, then there might be other numbers allowed by the axioms which do not satisfy Proposition S? If you agree, then do you recant on your claim (>>12069106
) that if some numbers satisfy S and some don't, then a contradiction is necessarily implied?

>>12070005
> Consider for example the definition of a group as a set with a binary operation satisfying three axioms. Z with addition is a group.
I'm not familiar with that. I have never studied modern algebra, I have no interest in it, and you are only introducing it to create needless complication.

>Let's denote [math]\mathbb{R}_{\text{usual}}[/math] the real numbers defined via equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences
Let's not. If you want to discuss my work, then use my notation. There is a symbol in there for what you're calling R-USUAL. If you can demonstrate to me that you know which symbol I'm talking about, then I will tell you about its relationship to the axioms in Section 2.1.

>yes
Then do you agree that if some of the numbers given by the axioms (numbers in the neighborhood of the origin) satisfy what you have called Proposition S, then there might be other numbers allowed by the axioms which do not satisfy Proposition S? If you agree, then do you recant on your claim (>>12069106) that if some numbers satisfy S and some don't, then a contradiction is necessarily implied?

>>12070291
>Let's not.
lol

>>12070291
>you are only introducing it to create needless complication
"I disagree"

>>12070291
>Let's not. If you want to discuss my work, then use my notation. There is a symbol in there for what you're calling R-USUAL. If you can demonstrate to me that you know which symbol I'm talking about, then I will tell you about its relationship to the axioms in Section 2.1.
I don't give a shit, it's you who's using non standard notation. I'm gonna use "real numbers" and "tooker numbers" instead and you can go fuck yourself.

>Then do you agree that if some of the numbers given by the axioms (numbers in the neighborhood of the origin) satisfy what you have called Proposition S, then there might be other numbers allowed by the axioms which do not satisfy Proposition S?
yes

>>12070291
>If you agree, then do you recant on your claim (>>12069106 (You)) that if some numbers satisfy S and some don't, then a contradiction is necessarily implied?
that depends on whether real numbers satisfy the axioms

>>12070495

>>12070527
do real numbers satisfy the axioms of tooker numbers? that's a simple question pal

how the the fuck is thread still alive after 4 days

>>12056074
or something in between

>>12070597
this thread is staying up by the sheer force of autism alone
truly something to behold

>>12070597
How could it not be alive? Tooker has enough content for eternity. In this thread alone we've discussed the Ukraine conspiracy, RH, Euclid's axioms, that time Tooker got swatted, that time Tooker quit his job like a retard, that time Tooker got a big tax return and fucked it up like a retard, that time Tooker claims he was raped, his street art, etc. I'm probably missing stuff on that list.

This thread will die but Tooker will still have shit to say and he'll have to say it in the next RH thread.

>>12070696
/rh/ general when?

>>12070527
Hey, I have a question that is somewhat unrelated, how did you find this place? I found it because I was looking for tranny porn and stayed for /sci/, what about you?

>>12063002
>you have not posed a counter example for me to look at
because you're wrong and your mathematical "proofs" are nonsense

Reminds me of someone

>>12070550
You have gone to some large efforts to belabor the point that I did not define "real numbers," and now you have defined neither them nor "tooker numbers." If you clarify what you mean, then I will answer you.

>>12070696
Fake internet censorship bubble would be my first guess.

>that time Tooker quit his job like a retard
Here's something I can say about one of the smartest things I've ever done. If there was something more between that person, "Flynn", and I than just him being the manager at my gym, then he would not have left me out in the gutter to get raped and stabbed and tortured and mutilated every other day for three years. He did do it and it is as I said: they relationship between that person and I was, at most, that he was the manager and my gym, and he probably wasn't even that to me. Quitting that job was one of the best decisions I ever made. Maybe (((the))) single best decision of my entire life.

>12070767
I heard about 4chan when I reading about the great and various exploits of the pic related hacker known as Anonymous. See how the one who does not sit in the company of mockers is blessed? That's me quitting Exide and never setting foot in 4630 N Shallowford again.

>>12070974
If you cite the article number of a theorem you think is nonsense, and you carefully explain what about it appears to be nonsensical to you, then I will carefully consider what you write.

>>12071075
Sadly the same won't happen to Tooker.
He'll die all alone.. and wrong.

>>12071096
Which Tooker are you talking about?

>>12070660
>autism
you mean schizophrenia

>>12071100
YOU you bloody nutcase. Fuck you're excruciatingly annoying. The only fucking idiot on this website with the same name "El Arcon" you use. That's it, I'm ramping up the sexual torture. What's that Helene? I'll let him know.

>>12071100
The one that is wrong.
The RH "proof" is the one true ring from The Lord of the Ring without the power attribute, and Tooker is Gollum.
You have to let go man, before it consumes you.

>>12071129
The one who made the ring was Sauron, dipshit.

>>12071129
Also, I will never let it go. Either all things I have written will befall you and/or your operators or I will pursue that outcome until my dying day. I am consumed by it already, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

>>12071081
real numbers = widely accepted definition
tooker numbers = your axiomatic definition of real numbers

>>12071209
Tooker but do you agree that your solution to the RH does not merit the 1 million because what people care about are the solutions in the neighborhood of 0 (i.e. the ones that can be applied to figure out the distribution of prime numbers)?

>>12071246
The definitions you give set Tooker numbers equal to real numbers

>>12071293
I do not agree. I think people only "care" about the solutions in the neighborhood of the origin because people never had the idea to do analysis in the neighborhood of infinity. This is same reason Euclid didn't care about calculus. Do you agree that Euclid didn't care about calculus? Does Euclid's not caring about calculus mean that people should have ignored calculus once it got invented?

Furthermore, I solved the problem that is described Clay's description of the problem. (pic related)
>Problems of the Millennium: the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/official_problem_description.pdf
If they give me the $1M or if they restate the problem to exclude the case I demonstrated, either suits my purposes. If my result was so strong that it forces a redefinition of the problem that Clay has a bounty on(pic related) then that will be evidence that my paper is not the unpublishble dogshit that ~30 journals and arXiv all said it is. In fact, that would mean paper belongs in the Annals of Mathematics. It is simply a matter of fact that I solved the problem that Clay has a bounty on. In Clay's rules, they say they might change problem definitions if weird cases are shown. Either way works for me, but I suspect that my solution to RH does all the prime number stuff a solution to RH is supposed to do.

>>12071713
>I think people only "care" about the solutions in the neighborhood of the origin because people never had the idea to do analysis in the neighborhood of infinity.

I don't agree. We've been doing analysis in the neighbourhood of infinity all along. We just weren't retarded so we decided it was better to put it in the language of limits as numbers in the neighbourhood of infinity break the field structure and also pretty much every structure. But there is no meaningfull difference between [math] \lim_{x + b \to \infty} f(x) [/math] and [math] f(\hat{\infty} - b) [/math] in any context that makes sense.

>Furthermore, I solved the problem that is described Clay's description of the problem. (pic related)
No you didn't. We have been very clear with that. Any reasonable interpretation of that text implies that what Clay cares about are the solutions at the neighbourhood of 0 (Remember my argument about J(x)).

>ut I suspect that my solution to RH does all the prime number stuff a solution to RH is supposed to do.
No it doesn't. Your zeroes would make Riemann's formula for J(x) function blow up everywhere. Meanwhile if only solutions in the neighbourhood of 0 counted, then Riemann's formula is actually a proper prime-counting function. Ergo we care only about what those parameters in Riemann's prime counting function are.

>>12071713
>The definitions you give set Tooker numbers equal to real numbers
>filename
Tooker you can't even samefag you damn fool

>>12071775
>doing analysis in the neighbourhood of infinity all along.
I also don't agree. The neighborhood of infinity only has numbers in it with greater than zero fractional distance with respect to infinity. Nobody was doing analysis with numbers in the intermediate numbers in the 20th century and not in the 21st until I invented this new notation.

>no meaningfull difference between limx+b∞f(x) and f(∞^−b) in any context that makes sense.
I think the hat is a big difference in the context that makes perfect sense in the paper I wrote.

>No you didn't. We have been very clear with that.
Clay specifically says they care about solutions which aren't the negative even integers. I proved my claim by posting the picture of what Clay says RH is. "You" being clear about it has nothing to do with the perfect clarity in Clay's paper.

>reasonable interpretation implies Clay cares about the solutions at the neighbourhood of 0
Here I eternally (((BTFO))) you: It was obvious that they don't care about the negative even integers and they still wrote that explicitly, pic rel. Why would they write the negative even integers which are ten million times more obviously out of scope than the neighborhood of infinity, but not make another explicit statement saying that they don't care about the neighborhood of infinity? You are BTFOed! The reasonable interpretation is that if they excluded the negative even integers explicitly, they would have excluded any other out-of-scope zeros explicitly as well.

>No it doesn't.
J says there are an infinite number of primes less than any positive number in the neighborhood of infinity. This is the correct behavior. Furthermore, who knows what kind of tricks might be pulled off by considering numbers of the form p'=(INFHAT-p) with p prime. These guys have the same distribution as the regular primes, but we have NEW ARITHMETIC TOOLS for these kind of numbers. Ergo, you have no reason to discount possible applications a priori

>>12071713
Do real numbers satisfy axioms of tooker numbers?

>>12072558
please define what you mean by those two kinds of numbers