[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 24 KB, 330x309, TIMESAND___can+we+fix+it.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12252445 No.12252445 [Reply] [Original]

Gone are the days when these threads could garner five fools to let make them look stupid.

Stupid criticisms:
1) Definitions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 comprise a circle because the range of the Euclidean metric could be taken as R instead of N or Q, and despite the fact that the line being equipped with "a function" does not depend on the function's range, be it R, Q, N, or any other thing.
2) The neighborhood of infinity is not allowed by the field axioms which did not exist until long after Hilbert's 1899 paper.
3) The neighborhood of infinity is not allowed by the 1872 Dedekind cut and Cauchy definitions which somehow constrain Riemann's 1859 hypothesis.
4) Although algebra is called the study of mathematical symbols and the rules for manipulating them, infinity hat is "magic," not mundane, and therefore it is not allowed.
5) The Archimedes property of real numbers is not what Euclid said it is. It is what Rudin says it is.
6) By the axiom that every real number is less than some natural number, every real number is less than some natural and, therefore. alternative axiomatic schemes are not admissible.
7) Although all the sentences in the paper contain the formal subject-predicate construction, the sentences are actually incomprehensible gibberish.
8) Although Clay explicitly rules out the trivial zeros at the negative integers, zeros which everyone knows are out of scope, they also ruled out the zeros in the neighborhood of infinity but they just didn't do it explicitly like they did with the negative even integers.

Who will add to the list? Anything I forgot?

>> No.12252802 [DELETED] 

tapping

>> No.12253823

Tooker, one of the main reasons people care about the Riemann hypothesis is that it is equivalent to many different statements in analytic number theory. When proving these equivalencies people only considered finite numbers. People aren’t likely to care about the Riemann hypothesis for numbers in the neighborhood of infinity unless similar proofs of equivalence to diverse statements are made.

>> No.12253837

>>12252445
>axioms
this is a fancy academic word for assumptions but no one wants to say it because it looks...shudders...unscientific

>> No.12253861

>>12253837
axioms aren't just assumptions pseud. we prove certain structures follow particular axioms all the time

>> No.12254043

>>12252445
>1)
based on what?
>2)
what is an infinity neighborhood
>3)
what is a dedekind cut or riemann 1859 hypothesis
>4)
how can you have an infinite number of hats
>5)
who is rudin and what did he say?
>6)
what
>7)
what paper
>8)
false

>> No.12255009
File: 310 KB, 595x496, TIMESAND___FractalWrongness.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12255009

>>12253823
The distribution of primes [math]p\in\mathbb{R}[/math] is the exact same as the distribution of [math](\widehat\infty-p)\in\mathbb{R}[/math] and now we have new arithmetic tools
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
for studying the latter. The new tools could shed new light on the distribution of such numbers and that would tell us about the distribution of the primes since it is the same distribution. Did you not notice that or were being mindlessly detractive?

>> No.12255094

>>12252445
>6) By the axiom that every real number is less than some natural number, every real number is less than some natural and, therefore. alternative axiomatic schemes are not admissible.
I think this is your fundamental misunderstanding in this subject matter, OP.

An alternative axiom scheme of a given mathematical structure will necessarily be isomorphic to the original -- that's what it means for two axiom schemes to be alternative definitions of the same concept. Therefore, any alternative axiom scheme of the real numbers will have the same properties, such as every real number being less than some natural number. If you have an axiom scheme whose structure it defines is NOT isomorphic to that defined by traditional axiomatizations, what you have is not an alternative definition of the real numbers, but rather an independent definition of a different structure altogether. Which can be very interesting in its own right, but has no bearing on properties of the real numbers, because that structure is not the real numbers.

>> No.12255649

someone pleas post the infinity hat hat

>> No.12256535
File: 185 KB, 636x895, TIMESAND___088vu8vnit44w5cn44449nnit44nit44w5cn4444wnx5nit44w5cn44447tv7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12256535

>>12255094
The whole point of my paper was to prove that the field axioms are not isomorphic to the original axiomatic scheme. It's you who doesn't understand, shitcunt, or more likely you understand perfectly well and are pretending not to.

>NOT isomorphic to that defined by traditional axiomatizations
The whole point of my paper was to show that the modern stuff like the field axioms and Dedekind cuts is NOT isomorphic to the traditional axioms. Are you being retarded on purpose?