/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12335442
Listen here Tooker. You're a fucking retard and nobody will ever reference your shitty schizo papers.

>>12335442
I mean for fuck sakes, Nikolaj makes videos in a tank-top and his stuff is a million more coherent than the garbage you produce.

>>12335442
It seems like the author has a very tenuous grasp of the most basic definitions in real analysis. The definition of real numbers that is given in the second chapter (the first chapter after the introductory chapter) is vague and meaningless: it's certainly not the standard definition of real numbers that all elementary textbooks on analysis give. In definition 2.1.9 the author defines the set of real numbers less than some natural number. What he fails, to mention, however, that within all standard definitions of real numbers, this set is the whole set of real numbers. That is, there are no "unbounded" real numbers. Here's a simple proof of this proposition using the Cauchy sequences definition of real numbers:

Let x be a real number. Let (q_i) be a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers representing x.
Because q_i is Cauchy, there exists a natural number M such that for all natural numbers m,n>M |q_m - q_n|<1.
For all natural numbers q_i, 1<=i<=M+1, pick natural numbers N_i such that N_i>q_i. Because the set of N_i's is finite, we can take their maximum N*:=max(N_i, where 1<=i<= M+1). Then each q_i +1 < N, where N=N* + 2.
Hence for this N, we have the inequality - N < x< N

Since x was arbitrary, this property holds for every real number x.
It's okay to construct your own number system and prove various properties about it. But in opinion, the author should be honest about the fact that the number system he presents (if it even makes sense: the language used in the paper is so nonstandard that it would take a long time and long correspondences with the author to judge the internal consistency of the paper) is not the commonly accepted structure of real numbers (in fact, universally accepted among professional mathematicians), and in turn, the proposition the author sets out to prove is not the Riemann Hypothesis.

>>12335568
While the author's enthusiasm about the topic as well as the page count is admirable, assuming he is not intentionally trying to deceive the reader by lying about what he's proving, I do think he needs to spend a little bit more time studying the subject before setting out to prove the famous Riemann Hypothesis.

>>12335558
What do you mean man? He can peer through the illusions of society and expose (((them))). (((They))) are hiding his brilliance which is why no one is taking his proof seriously.

>>12335578

>vixra

>>12335568
>it's certainly not the standard definition of real numbers that all elementary textbooks on analysis
No, I got the stuff in Section 2 from the most standard elementary textbook of all time: Euclid's Elements. You are wrong and stupid.

>What he fails, to mention, however, that within all standard definitions of real numbers, this set is the whole set of real numbers.
Shitcunt does not fail to mention so much as he deliberately avoids acknowledging that none of the definitions he calls "standard" were in existence in the 1850s when Riemann posed hypothesis so it is 100% impossible for Riemann's hypothesis to be constrained by definitions which did not yet exist. Furthermore, what Shitcunt does here is deceptively employ semantics so as to label only the most modern (post-Riemannian) conventions as standard while not properly citing the Euclidean (Riemannian) convention that stood for thousands of years as the standard convention. Indeed, what he calls "all standard definitions" ignores the Euclidean definition which is "the standard definition."

> Here's a simple proof of this proposition using the Cauchy sequences definition of real numbers:
Actually, instead of taking the axiom that all reals are Cauchy equivalence classes and then proceeding to demonstrate the non-existence of a neighborhood of infinity, you can just take the axiom that that neighborhood doesn't exist and then cite self-evidence in the axiom.

>It's okay to construct your own number system
Yes, i see that's what you have done constructing a number system where every number is a Cauchy equivalence class of rationals. Maybe you should call you magic number system "4chanian pretend numbers" to distinguish it from the real number system that Euclid described.

>>12335571
It is you who intentionally attempts to deceive when you fail to to mention that nothing in what you call "all standard definitions" existed before 1872, most of it not before 1899. Since RH comes from 1859, none of those things you call "standard" are in scope for the problem.

>>12335562
The Chad Nikolaj vs the virgin math coomers.

>>12335624
>>12335614

It's not my fault you're a nigger.

>>12335614
You are so stupid it's not even funny

>>12335624
And infinity hat didn't exist either, so I guess it's not in the scope of the problem.
Try again, schizo.

>>12335639
Kek why would he say that on camera. He's like the mentally stunted version of perelman.

>>12335442
those equations get ridiculous so fast.
it's funny, and sad, and amazing, and interesting how as a human we can write down a few symbols, take even the "wat r u doin?" one for example, and we can know what it means symbolically, and what it's asking or doing, and yet to solve it, or calculate it, or ask meaningful questions about it is virtually impossible.

it sucks knowing our minds are so limited in that capacity, like it doesn't help you hunt or gather food right, but for some alien, or the universe, or higher whatever, it can think freely in those terms like it was child's play.

still fun equations though.
p.s. is that upper right one used for something specific? The sum of the infinite product of reciprocal factorials, nth derivatives, and nth binomial expansion. What's it do?

>>12335657
Shitcunt, my statement was that the problem can't require definitions which didn't come into existence until several years or decades or after the problem was formulated. If you can solve the problem with those definitions, that is fine. Those definitions are not forbidden. Your non sequitur is terrible.

>>12335758
It tells how little you understand what's going on that you ask why I would say it on camera but not why that person would dare to point a camera at me. One of those things is completely outrageous.

>>12335815
>What's it do?
That's the Taylor series expansion of f(x) about the point x=a.

>>12335876
>Shitcunt, my statement was that the problem can't require definitions which didn't come into existence until several years or decades or after the problem was formulated.
The problem with this statement is that it is wrong. Once you understand this, you might start making some actual sense of mathematics.

>>12335614
You talking about the chapter on Eudoxus' theory of proportions? Because that also says
>Magnitudes are said to have a ratio to one another which can, when multiplied, exceed one another.

>>12335876
>That's the Taylor series expansion of f(x) about the point x=a.
oh crap thanks, i should have known that, it's been 15 years, but I've used them before, i knew it looked familiar, the factorial threw me off a moment. I even remember learning about why the rates of change connected to the polynomials, but now I've forgot. I know it's in my old math aps book. Good stuff.

I recognized the stahp a bit from physics, it's one of those potentials or something from relativity or force unification; i know I've seenit before.

The other Math with the products I don't recognize; it looks like a multiple variable continuation of the Taylor series or something.

The last one is part of your cosmological model, no? or part of your riemann stuff, i think.

>>12335953
Your post is the wrong one. Maybe you're pretending like you thought I wrote "in scope for the solution" but I wrote "in scope for the problem." You can use that stuff in a solution but you can't say is a part of the statement of the problem. Maybe if you weren't so retarded you'd know that the pedantic tone you take in writing is going to cost you far more in the long run that what it profits you in a moment, which I doubt is more than a very little.

>>12336047
Yes, I quote that sentence in full text probably about five or ten times in my paper. Pic related, have you read it?

>>12336132
Yes, the "OK" one is my geometric fractional distance function.

>>12335876
>Shitcunt, my statement was that the problem can't require definitions which didn't come into existence until several years or decades or after the problem was formulated.
It definitely can. Otherwise the problem makes no sense since the reals are undefined. The question is whether we use the definition all mathematicians use, i.e. the one that best captures the historical concept of real numbers in a rigorous way, or the definition a schizo made up in the most contrived way possible. No one but you cares about your schizo interpretation of the problem. Get it yet?

>>12336253
>It definitely can. Otherwise the problem makes no sense since the reals are undefined.
The standard definition of R in 1859 was Euclid's. You think, or more likely you don't but are pretending to, that just because Euclid's definition can't resolve certain esoteric questions in set theory means that it is not a definition at all. That is completely wrong and stupid, and all of the shortcomings you could cite to demonstrate a "lack of rigor" in Euclid's definition, should you recant on your stupid claim that his definition is not a definition, are in areas of math completely removed from RH. Furthermore, if you claim that Euclid's definition was either not a definition (stupid) or else not rigorous because there are certain questions Euclid's definition can't answer, then I can point you to even more esoteric questions that your preferred definitions of R are unable to answer. Pic related from
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers
the objectives you say must be met for a definition to be "rigorous" are just some arbitrary bullshit which happened to be the interesting problem of the day at some point. Although the modern definitions of R still have shortcomings, those problems are not among the most interesting problems of the day and the modern definitions are given a pass on not being "rigorous" because they can't solve those problems. Saying that Euclid is not rigorous is, firstly, completely stupid because Riemann used Euclid's definition of R and, secondly, tantamount to sniffing your own farts because your citation of non-rigor due to inability to solve X problem allows someone else to cite non-rigor in your preferred definition because it can't solve Y problem.

>>12336253
https://www.math.ucla.edu/~twg/real.numbers.doc

>>12336311
The author here goes on to say that Euclid runs into a logical circle proving himself and that for that reason, axioms are required. He list the field axioms but it suffices, however, to take the axiom that it is as Euclid said it was.

>>12335442
That's really interesting Tooker. I have brought you an excerpt from Wolfram's article on the Riemann prime counting function:
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannPrimeCountingFunction.html

No need to read it all if you don't have, I have highlighted the important parts in my picture. This function is also explicitly mentioned in Clay's page by the way.

If you notice, f(x) will yield a finite value for any positive x. It never blows up. However, if you observe at its analytic formula proven by Mangoldt there is a term where there is a sum than runs over all the non-trivial zeroes of the Zeta function. However, if you think about it, if there were zeroes in the neighbourhood of infinity as you claim then those zeroes would appear in that series but that would cause the series to blow up and yield -infinity values for a function that is clearly never -infinity.

How do you deal with this in your theory? This seems like a clear contradiction.

>>12336309
Tookey, you dumb schizo. How can you not see that every time you argue against the rigorous definition of the reals being applied to the problem you also argue against your own definition being applied to the problem? There is no way to get around this. Redefining the problem doesn't solve anything if no one cares about your definition in the first place. And no one does. Cry more, schizo. Your tantrum tears are delicious.

>>12336333
All theorems are invalid because they don't follow the schizo's redefinition of the reals.

>>12336047
Is this not typically called the Archimedean principle? Or property?

>>12336180
>Maybe if you weren't so retarded you'd know that the pedantic tone you take in writing is going to cost you far more in the long run [than] what it profits you in a moment, which I doubt is more than a very little.
This is glorious, kek. You could’ve been a writer instead, if you hadn’t decided on being a mathematician. Reminds me of Bilbo's speech. What did you mean by this, though? Are you implying a day of retribution?

>>12336333
>How do you deal with this in your theory?
The issue in your thinking is this:
>a function that is clearly never -infinity.
If the function is "the prime counting function," and if there are infinite primes, and if all primes are in the neighborhood of the origin, then it makes sense that the prime counting function should tell us that there are an infinite number of primes less than a number in the neighborhood of the origin. You have not shown a contradiction at all. Rather, you have shown that Riemann's prime counting function behaves as expected in the neighborhood of infinity, and that infinity hat is robust in this application. It the function returned a finite number, meaning that it said there were a finite number of primes less than a number in the neighborhood of infinity, than *that* would be a contradiction since it is known that there are an infinite number of primes in the neighborhood of the origin.

Does anyone know if their is a way to filter posts by Tooker?

>>12336384
Archimedes' principle is about buoyancy. The property is about numbers.

>>12336392
>day of retribution?
Yes, that's it exactly.

>>12336429
This argument is so unsound I think we all have become deaf.

>>12336333
>How do you deal with this in your theory?
The issue in your thinking is this:
>a function that is clearly never -infinity.
If the function is "the prime counting function," and if there are infinite primes, and if all primes are in the neighborhood of the origin, then it makes sense that the prime counting function should tell us that there are an infinite number of primes less than a number in the neighborhood of infinity. You have not shown a contradiction at all. Rather, by citing the divergence of the function when evaluated at a number in the neighborhood of infinity, you have shown that Riemann's prime counting function behaves as expected and that infinity hat is robust in this application. It the function returned a finite number, meaning that it said there were a finite number of primes less than a number in the neighborhood of infinity, than *that* would be a contradiction since it is known that there are an infinite number of primes in the neighborhood of the origin. If the function tells you there are a divergent number of primes less than a number in the neighborhood of infinity, then it is telling you exactly the right thing.

>>12336440
I had a nasty typo there. See:>>12336441

>>12336441
>If the function is "the prime counting function," and if there are infinite primes
Tooker, a prime counting function takes the argument x and outputs the number of primes less than or equal to x. In the formula I'm giving you, it is not x that is in their neighbourhood of infinity but the little [math] \rho [/math]'s. Thus f(x) should be finite.

>you can't use the modern definition of the reals to object to my solution because Riemann didn't have that definition when he came up with the problem
>by the way the Riemann hypothesis is false because of this definition I made up that Riemann didn't have when he came up with the problem

>>12337059
I understand. I will look into this error. I'm starting not to feel very confident about this paper anymore.
>>12337155
Well, my goal was to think about the thought process of Riemann at the time, though upon further analysis of my papers last night this appears not to be the case anymore.

the virgin /sci/ vs. the chad Tooker

>>12337218
No no, I think a few of the kind contributors of this thread have given me great insight to how my work is riddled with flaws.

>>12337059
If "x" is a number in the neighborhood of infinity, then there are a divergent number of primes less than or equal to "x."

>>12337155
I didn't say you can't use it. I said you can't make it a requirement of the problem.

>>12337528
Either it's irrelevant to the problem, in which case no alternative definitions are needed, or a requirement of the problem. Either way, the solution shouldn't violate the definition of the reals. You haven't solved it.

>>12337730
What do you think of this post here?
>>12336309

Is the modern standard "rigorous" definition of the reals pretty much arbitrary?

>>12335442
This whole thread is just tooker responding to himself and he's not very good at trying to embody different personas

>>12337730
>can use
>have to use
>not the same

Here is an example: Since topology was not invented until the 20th century, it is not possible that the Riemann hypothesis is formulated in terms of R being a topological space with the usual topology. However, if one wanted to approach the problem through the topological space framework, that is not forbidden. Neither, however, is it required that one employ the topological space framework in any attempt to get the $1M. Similarly, use of the field axioms which date, at earliest, to Hilbert's 1899 paper is allowed but not required. You are wrong to say that approaches to the problem cannot be valid unless they incorporate the 1899 Hilbert framework, and you are wrong to say that I have claimed the RH disallows the application of new techniques. You are improperly paraphrasing me, essentially, to say that since Riemann did not solve his own problem it means solutions are not allowed because no solution was known to Riemann.

>>12337730
You are wrong and stupid, and you are extra stupid because you know you are wrong and you are writing the wrong thing anyways.

>>12337744
I think it's all pretty much irrelevant, for the reason stated above. But if you want to get down to the details then determining the 1859 definition of the reals is not as easy as you think it is because there was no definition actually written down. It's also not as arbitrary as you think it is, there is a time before an axiomatic approach and after it. Maybe someone will find some way in which Riemann treated the reals that contradicts your definition. Maybe not. It really doesn't matter.

>>12337744
Two great questions, based dubs guy. Yes, it is arbitrary to say, "A definition is only rigorous if it can prove X class of theorems." Why should X class theorems be the standard of rigor but not the Y class of theorems which Euclid's framework is able to prove? Or why not the Z class of theorems which the modernist frameworks are still unable to prove?

>>12337801
Thanks. I am only a layman, just interested in this. I thought that post seemed compelling so I wanted to hear someone else’s thought so on that argument.

So basically, Riemann had some intuitive, but not precise or strictly defined idea of the reals?

>>12337797
>Since topology was not invented until the 20th century
I'm not talking about inventions, I'm talking about definitions of what's in the problem, and axioms.

>You are wrong to say that approaches to the problem cannot be valid unless they incorporate the 1899 Hilbert framework
I didn't say that.

>and you are wrong to say that I have claimed the RH disallows the application of new techniques.
I didn't say that.

>You are improperly paraphrasing me, essentially, to say that since Riemann did not solve his own problem it means solutions are not allowed because no solution was known to Riemann.
I didn't say that.

>>12337799

>>12337827
Yes, and Tooker is confusing "rigor" for actually writing down a definition.

>>12337801
>there was no definition actually written down.
It was written down. It was written in Euclid's book "The Elements of Geometry." Riemann's program of Riemannian geometry is a direct extension of Euclid's Euclidean geometry because Riemann's entire research program had its basis in Euclid's Elements, as did all of Riemann's contemporaries and forebears. Did you ever wonder how Dedekind became interested enough in cuts to end up having a specific type of cut named after himself? It was because his own classical education had taught him that real numbers are Euclidean magnitudes, which are cuts in a line. You're saying the definition of R wasn't written down in 1859 to avoid acknowledging that the same written standard had been in use for thousands of years until the modernists changed it when they became more interested in algebraic set theory than in quantity, geometry, and measurement. All of the criticism against me, "That's great if you want to invent your own magic number system but don't call it R," is rightly levied against the modernists who rejected the standard which stood for thousands of years. Indeed, the modernists never intended to reject that standard at all and it was only done inadvertently! It was my result
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
to show a subtle incompatibility between the modernist and historical definitions of R. Namely, the modernist construction does not admit a neighborhood of infinity while the traditional construction not only admits it but gives it directly through R=(-inf,inf). The title "real numbers" is reserved for the traditional construction. Now that I have demonstrated, contrary to popular belief, that the modernist constructions are not identical to the historical construction, something which was NEVER the intention of the modernists, the label used by the modernists must be changed from R to R_0.

>>12337839
You detestable retard! Ad hominem is when I say you are wrong because you are retarded. What you wrote would be wrong for the reasons I gave even if you weren't retarded and I did not use your feeble-mindedness as part of my demonstration of your wrongness.

>>12337874
>It was written down. It was written in Euclid's book "The Elements of Geometry."
But that's wrong. First, The Elements doesn't refer to numbers, it refers to purely geometric constructions. Euclid did not think line segments had lengths corresponding to numbers. Mathematicians only used Euclidean geometry to construct real numbers after 1859. Second, Euclid's axioms are not sufficient for Euclidean geometry.

>>12337948
You are completely wrong. Euclid specifically refers to numbers in Book 7. What he calls "numbers" in Greek are what we call natural numbers in English. What he called "magnitudes" ("[math] \mu\varepsilon\gamma\varepsilon\theta\omicron\varsigma [/math]") in Greek in Book 5 are what we call real numbers in English. As proof of my claim, consider that "The Archimedes property of real numbers" appeared in Book 5 of Euclid's Elements and it refers to what Euclid called magnitudes. This proves the identical equality of English labelled "real numbers" with Euclid's Greek labeled "[math] \mu\varepsilon\gamma\varepsilon\theta\omicron\varsigma [/math]".

>>12337948
You are completely wrong. Euclid specifically refers to numbers in Book 7. What he calls "numbers" in Greek are what we call natural numbers in English. What he called "magnitudes" ("[math]\mu\varepsilon\gamma\varepsilon\vartheta\omicron\varsigma[/math]") in Greek in Book 5 are what we call real numbers in English. As proof of my claim, consider that "The Archimedes property of real numbers" appeared in Book 5 of Euclid's Elements and it refers to what Euclid called magnitudes. This proves the identical equality of English labelled "real numbers" with Euclid's Greek labeled "[math]\mu\varepsilon\gamma\varepsilon\vartheta\omicron\varsigma[/math]".

>Riemann hypothesis false

LOL shut the fuck up retard

>>12335442
Tooker, I have found an issue with your proof. The Riemann Zeta function is well-known to be holomorphic at every point except at 1. So it is a holomorphic function is the set [math] \mathbb{C} - {1} [/math].

Now consider a complex number z = x + iy. If we put assign a number in the neighbourhood of infinity to y then on x we can put whatever we want and z will be a solution to the Riemann Zeta Function according to your people. However this would clearly yield an uncountable number of zeroes for the function.

However it can be proven that no holomorphic function (other than the 0 function itself) can have uncountably many zeroes. You can read this https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/892864/can-a-holomorphic-function-have-uncountable-many-zeros
or just reference your vast knowledge of complex analysis as I'm sure you could prove this yourself with little effort.

So I think your argument has a problem somewhere.

>>12338081
He wont answer you know

>>12338038
>Euclid specifically refers to numbers in Book 7.
Yes, natural numbers only. Magnitudes and ratios are not numbers for Euclid, they are purely geometric. This is why he never multiplies a magnitude by a magnitude.

>are what we call real numbers in English
Totally wrong. They refer to lengths, areas, and volumes, not numbers.

>"The Archimedes property of real numbers" appeared in Book 5 of Euclid's Elements
Yeah, it appears in the context of Euclidean geometry. It was not used in the modern sense until the 1880s.

>This proves the identical equality of English labelled "real numbers" with Euclid's
No it doesn't, it shows that number theorists after Riemann were inspired by Euclidean geometry. Your logic is completely backwards. Riemann could not have used a correspondence between Euclidean geometry and number theory that didn't yet exist.

>>12338081
What draws you to the idea that the problem is in my argument and not in the comment on Stack Exchange? The answer you cite claims "the zero set Z has no limit points" but I have shown in Theorem 5.4 here (pic):
>Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
>https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030
that Z (which I call "[math] \{\gamma_n\} [/math]") does have limit points in the neighborhood of infinity. Therefore, the proof you cite fails because it wrongly assumes that Z has no limit points.

>>12338178
I did answer and basically all of Section 5 (pic) is dedicated to showing exactly this thing. If you disgusting, cretinous pieces of human trash would read my paper and then criticize it instead of just skipping straight to shitting on it without reading it, then you would have already seen everything I wrote in Section 5 here:
>Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
>https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030

>>12338384
Tooker I would read your paper but it would be a waste of my time as I lack the mathematical knowledge and mathematical maturity to understand any of it. We aren’t all blessed with a higher than average IQ and work ethic that you seem to have. In fact I think the majority of us humans lack the capacity to meaningfully understand or appreciate RH. It might as well be giberish to us.

>>12338258
Euclid didn't write in English and you are not making proper translations into the jargon. Euclid wrote what we call "the Archimedes property of real numbers" as a property of "[math]\mu\varepsilon\gamma\varepsilon\vartheta\omicron\varsigma[/math]." Since the property is called in English a property of "real numbers" it necessarily follows that Euclid's Greek language Greek character string "[math]\mu\varepsilon\gamma\varepsilon\vartheta\omicron\varsigma[/math]" is translated rightly to the English language Latin character string "real numbers." BTFO, Q.E.D.

Everything you said is wrong. I have provided evidence, conclusive evidence in fact, that Euclid's Greek word is properly translated as I say. You have not given any evidence and your whole post is rightly paraphrased as, "Nuh-uh." Furthermore, here is a paper by two professional math PhDs (pic)
>The real numbers: Pythagoras to Stevin
>https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Real_numbers_1/
which traces the history of real numbers back to Pythagoras whose work was old by the time Euclid wrote. If you read the whole paper, which you will certainly pretend not to have even if you do, then you will see that these two math PhDs dispute your notion thaat Euclid didn't write about English "real numbers" using the Greek word "[math]\mu\varepsilon\gamma\varepsilon\vartheta\omicron\varsigma[/math]". If you actually cared about learning, maybe you would read their follow on paper which supports everything I say and I which I cited in my own paper:
>The real numbers: Stevin to Hilbert
>https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Real_numbers_2/

Bro you have been posting this shit for years. What is the point of all this? When are you going to stop?

>>12338480
When I feel like I have finally accomplished this step at the bottom which I am stuck on because you all censor my internet and get paid to make sure I can never get paid for the work that I do.

>haha, lol
>you can't ply your trade in Antarctica
>that's why we keep you here

>>12338480
>>12338480
You have been working against me for years. When are you going to stop?

Here's a thing that I've mentioned before. I don't why you all do the work you do. Maybe you just love my enemy the USA or maybe you're saving up for you kids' college or something. However, doing that work creates a logical snafu regarding the ends you hope to achieve.

>>12338371
Tooker, if your solution depends on a set of numbers in which holomorphic function can now have uncountably many zeroes then I think it is pretty safe to say that your numbers are too far gone and that this isn't a solution to the problem at hand. This is a well known property of holomorphic functions which Riemann would know.

>>12338643
If you think only something Riemann knew or thought could be allowed, then solutions to RH are inadmissible because Riemann didn't know how to solve his hypothesis.

If you think that thing you mentioned is a property of holomorphic functions, then try proving it, or at least link to a proof without an obvious unfixable error in it.

Look how these cretins twist the language. I said that the definition of the RH problem from 1859 can't depend of something that didn't exist until 1872 for Dedekind cuts or 1899, at earliest, for the field axioms. Then my detractors the objective existence of thing as equivalent to Riemann himself knowing about it personally. Their ruses are as abominable as their bloodlines.
>can use
>have to use
>not the same

>>12337889
>Ad hominem is when I say you are wrong because you are retarded
No, that would be an ad hominem argument, a fallacy. Ad hominem is simply an attack on the person. When someone has no substantive argument and simply responds with ad hominem, it means they lost.

>>12338643
>then I think
Do you think? Does your chosen course of action reflect thought?

>>12338752
I may be wrong, but I believe your quoted text "the ad hominem" refers to "the" ad hominem fallacy as opposed to "an" ad hominem attack.

>>12338752
>When someone has no substantive argument and simply responds with ad hominem, it means they lost.
This is wrong. It usually means they're telling you to go fuck yourself.

>>12338737
>>12338757
Here is another source for different proofs of the same ELEMENTARY THEOREM:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/625734/holomorphic-function-has-at-most-countably-zeros

This is something you'd discuss in any complex analysis course.

>>12338798
This proof depends on the identity theorem which I refuted as Proposition 5.2 in
>Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
>https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030
This was not the first time a theorem previously thought to be true was later found to fail in a certain case.

>>12338812
>This was not the first time a theorem previously thought to be true was later found to fail in a certain case.
In fact, this happens so frequently that Clay even put language about that in its contest rules. If Clay reformulates RH to disallow the case I showed, then that is fine. I am not in charge of their contest or their money. If my result is strong enough to force a restatement of "the most important unsolved problem in mathematics," then my result is good enough to appear in the Annals of Mathematics and it is not "devoid of scholarly content" like the censors at arXiv said it was. Pic from here:
http://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/millennium_prize_rules.pdf

>>12338829
>devoid of scholarly content

>>12338812
>>12338829
>The Identity Theorem
Tooker, if this elementary theorem of Complex Analysis fails under your system then you are doing math in another universe. Do you know how much of complex analysis depends on the identity theorem being true? If that isn't true in your system then you are not doing complex analysis. I suggest you give this a new name. Maybe Tooker analysis.

But this would not be a proof of RH because Riemann was doing Complex Analysis, not Tooker analysis.

>>12338829
>like the censors at arXiv said it was
And, furthermore, did someone at arXiv even say that or was that the man-in-the-middle attacker being an asshole mocking by my work?

>>12338837
All of what you are calling complex analysis is the complex analysis of the neighborhood of the origin and the identity theorem holds there. None of the treasured results fail because none of the treasured results were thought to apply beyond the neighborhood of the origin.

The proof you cited linked to pic related, and I clearly show the the theorem has neglected to give due consideration to the neighborhood of infinity. If you can see this proof that you have give, and also the clear error in it, but you still find that the theorem is true, then you aren't doing complex analysis.

Basically, you all work for Big Tiny. He tells you that his name is Big so you think he's Big, but he hides it from you that his full name is Big Tiny.

>>12338871
>what you are calling complex analysis is the complex analysis of the neighborhood of the origin
Then Riemann was doing complex analysis of the neighborhood of the origin.

>>12338887
Certainly.

Now you'll say, "Your zeros in the neighborhood of infinity are invalid."

>>12338896
So... your solutions don't count for solving the Riemann Hypothesis given that he clearly wanted to find solutions in the neighbourhood of the origin?

>>12338421
>Euclid didn't write in English and you are not making proper translations into the jargon.
You don't even know what translation I'm using.

>Euclid wrote what we call "the Archimedes property
No, what we call the Archimedean property was written by Otto Stolz in the 1880s, based on Euclid's Definition 4.

>Since the property is called in English a property of "real numbers" it necessarily follows that Euclid's Greek language Greek character string
It doesn't follow at all. One is based on the other, that doesn't make them equivalent in all respects. It certainly doesn't give Riemann a crystal ball to the construction of the reals via Euclidean geometry. You keep ignoring that your argument ignores the fundamental timeline of events.

>>12338909
He clearly didn't find the solutions he was looking for because he was only looking in the neighborhood of the origin.

>>12338930
>No, what we call the Archimedean property was written by Otto Stolz in the 1880s
This is wrong. All Stolz did was to call it "the Archimedes property." Are you so stupid that you cannot tell the difference between a property and the name of the property? You are completely wrong and you're probably even more retarded than you are wrong. Pic from here:
>https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Stolz/

>>12338984
>He clearly didn't find the solutions he was looking for because he was only looking in the neighborhood of the origin.
I lost my keys in the yard and I didn't find them after only looking the kitchen. If someone else finds my keys in the yard, I'm going to tell them I don't want their stupid infinity hat yard keys.

>>12338997
Or...

Clay: We have a very interesting competition! We have hidden a key in this yard and it is very hard to find but if you find it then the prize is one million dollars!

Tooker: I WENT TO A WHOLE KEY STORE AND THERE I FOUND PLENTY OF KEYS. SO MANY KEYS. I HAVE BROUGHT ALL OF THEM NOW. GIVE ME MY MILLION.

>>12336180
You claim multiple means real number multiple rather than natural number (>= 2) multiple in Euclid because he says "A magnitude is a part of a magnitude, the less of the greater, when it measures the greater." But here he is just defining "part" to mean 1/n part (with n a natural number >= 2).

Besides, it ought to be pretty clear what he means by multiple when you look at the diagrams.

>>12339221
>pretty clear what he means when you look at the diagrams.
I agree.

>>12338533
If I'm not mistaken, you all sabotage my scientific work *and* my literary work, and then you use my destitution as a predicate for why you ought to torment me.

Tooker is an inspiration.

>>12338984
>This is wrong. All Stolz did was to call it "the Archimedes property."
Incorrect, he also applied it to number theory.

>but my source didn't say that!!
Because your source is shit.

>>12340522
He didn't do anything new with it except call it the Archimedes axiom. What you're calling an "application to number theory" was nothing more than him writing a paper about the axiom exactly as Archimedes had posed it. Furthermore, you wrote:
>what we call the Archimedean property was written by Otto Stolz in the 1880s,
which is completely wrong. At least you have backed away from the stupid wrong thing you wrote, but you have retreated seeming to still assign some special significance to Stolz' use of the axiom beyond him having called it "Archimedes axiom." There is no special significance. The axiom he used was exactly as Euclid wrote it. You wrote the wrong thing
>what we call the Archimedean property was written by Otto Stolz in the 1880s,
and whatever source told you that thing was shit. Now you're changing your tune to some other unsourced claim to act like there was at least some kernel of truth in your idea but there is none. Stolz' original contribution was nothing more than to call it Archimedes' axiom. Perhaps when you say, "He applied it to number theory," you mean, "Stolz wrote a paper about Archimedes' property of real numbers?" That is not remarkable at all. He did not change the property at all from Euclid. He used exactly what Euclid wrote.

>>12339638

Tooker's paper makes no fucking sense. The first definition, Definition 2.1.1 is vague nonsense. "A line is a 1D Hausdorff space extending infinitely far in both directions."

There are several nonequivalent ways of defining dimension of a topological space. Which one is it? And what is meant by "infinitely far in both directions?" This makes no sense for an arbitrary topological space, for which there is no intrinsic notion of distance.

>>12341169
>He didn't do anything new with it except call it the Archimedes axiom.
Oh right, he just named it for no reason. He wrote a paper that solely consisted of "I name this the Archimedean property." Dumb schizo.

>What you're calling an "application to number theory" was nothing more than him writing a paper about the axiom exactly as Archimedes had posed it.
Why would he do that?

>which is completely wrong.
Wrong.

>At least you have backed away from the stupid wrong thing you wrote
Where did I do that?

I'll just repeat what I already wrote since you continue to fail to respond to it:

One is based on the other, that doesn't make them equivalent in all respects. It certainly doesn't give Riemann a crystal ball to the construction of the reals via Euclidean geometry. You keep ignoring that your argument ignores the fundamental timeline of events.

Okay, I'm trying to get through all the definitions in section 2, but I don't quite get it.

Q1: You define (2.3.15) the algebraic representation of a geometric point along some real line segment AB as some subinterval [x1,x2]. Does this mean that every subinterval corresponds to some geometric point? It seems like the answer is no, but I don't see any constraints on which subintervals can correspond to geometric points.

Q2: You define (2.3.17) that if [x1,x2] represents a geometric point X and x1=/=x2, then any number x in [x1,x2] is a "possible algebraic representation" of X. But since algebraic representations are unique (2.3.11) and x =/= [x1,x2] since the interval must contain multiple points, x should be guaranteed to never be a algebraic representation of X. Is a "possible representation" something different to an algebraic representation?

Q3: As a concrete example, let AB=[0,1]. In this interval, what is the algebraic representation of A, and what is the representation of B?

>>12341271
>he just named it for no reason.
He didn't even actually name it. His paper just had the phrase "Axiom of Archimedes" in its title and it stuck. You are wrong and stupid.

>Why would he do that?
Probably for the same reason I had a section called "The Archimedes Property of Real Numbers" in my paper: pure scholarship.

>One is based on the other, that doesn't make them equivalent in all respects.
The reason you can't produce some axiom that Stolz came up with which is materially different than the one Euclid wrote down is because no such one exists.

>>12341318
I am glad to see your questions which are not stupid at all.

>Does this mean that every subinterval corresponds to some geometric point?
No. The constraint is that intervals with vanishing fractional distance with respect to [math]\mathbf{AB}[/math] can correspond to some geometric point. In this analysis I have focused on the downward relationship from geometric representations to algebraic ones but I have not fully treated the upward relationship from algebra to geometry. I think it you study it very closely, you will see a lot of unanswered questions in that regard. However, since real numbers in the tradition of Euclid are fundamentally geometric, the downward relationship from geometry to algebra is the fundamentally constraining relationship, and I have fully treated it as such in the paper. I hope you don't say, "If you haven't rewritten all of mathematical analysis in your single paper then your paper is worthless."

>then any number x in [x1,x2] is a "possible algebraic representation" of X
Here you intermingle the general English definition of the word "possible" with the specific jargon meaning I have bestowed on it with the quotes in the definition. I could have said "any number x in [x1,x2] is a 'sandwich algebraic representation' of X" but I chose the word possible to label that definite characteristic. Furthermore, if a line segment is long enough that its geometric points contain more than one number, then we might take a shorter line segment such that a possible representation becomes "the" representation of the point when it exists in a shorter line segment. This relates to the "upward relationship" that I mentioned above. However, what you say is true: x should be guaranteed to never be a algebraic representation of X.

>what is the algebraic representation of A, and what is the representation of B?
I refer you to Theorem 3.3.1. The algebraic representation of A is zero and the algebraic representation of B is one.

>>12338752
>Ad hominem is simply an attack on the person
nope

>>12341818

>>12335442
Tooker, why do you have Itō's Lemma in that pic? Not sure it fits.

So when do you plan on collecting the prize?

What are you doing with your life Tooker. Why do this for years?

>>12342223
That was just some random meme I added a line to at the bottom.

>>12342251
My working assumption is that i will never get it.

>>12342263
I'm trying to accomplish the mission of the Messiah which is to command the obedience of the nations and to be the master of the Day of Judgement, and also to have a male heir. I do it because there is nothing I want more than to destroy my enemies and hear their sadness when I give their children to their enemies. I have some other plans as well but make no mistake about my most passionate longing: I want to pour out my wrath on the heathen horde.

ceiling tapping

I just want to say I’m a dumb schizo. I don’t take my meds because it’s the jews who make them. That is all.

>>12342584
Not only do I not have any meds, I have not been prescribed any meds.

>>12342668
You clearly have mathematical talent Tooker. But at some point you have to move on with your life. And I would suggest seeing a doctor to help you

>>12342836
I would suggest killing your beloved people so they don't get tortured to death.

>But at some point you have to move on with your life.
Nice claim you have there. Try proving it.

>>12342584
Ok youre definitely trolling. If a schizo can activrly be aware of their schizophrenia and see it as something to be medicated and yet will not seek medication.... what can be said of that person other than A.) There is nothing we can do for them from these conclusions. Or B.) They should be brought to a mental hospital against their will. Even if they fucking lobotimized you at least you xould be a functional simple person, literally just incapable of realizing positive goals for yourself whatsoever. Even when you xan identify what you must do you just wont do ir.
However, I doubt this to be the case, surely you dont really know you are sick, desire treatment, yet avoid treatment.

>>12341818
Yes.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

>>12338761
Neither what I quoted of you nor the quote here >>12337839 mentions fallacy.

>>12338771
Yes, that's usually the reaction someone has when they have no argument left.

>>12341617
>He didn't even actually name it. His paper just had the phrase "Axiom of Archimedes" in its title and it stuck.
So why did you claim he didn't do anything with it except name it? Why mention it at all? You won't say because you know you're wrong.

>Probably for the same reason I had a section called "The Archimedes Property of Real Numbers" in my paper: pure scholarship.
I doubt it he did anything for the same reaosn as you, since he was an actual mathematician and not schizophrenic.

>The reason you can't produce some axiom that Stolz came up with
I already did, the Archimedean principle, as it pertains to real numbers.

Once again you failed to respond to the fact that your argument is based on developments in mathematics that occurred after 1859. You lose.

>>12342950
>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
Ad hominem is the name of a fallacy. It is a compound synonym with the dictionary link you posted.

>>12342953
Not really. If I say putting an apple in a basket twice causes the basket to have two apples in it, and you say, "Nuh-uh, it makes fifteen apples," and I show you that 1+1=2, but you still say, "Nuh-uh, it's 15," and then I call you a shithead, it doesn't make me lose the argument. It doesn't mean I lost the argument. It just means that I felt like calling you a shithead, shitcunt.

>>12335442
>>12335614
>>12335624
>>12335876
>>12336180
>>12336309
>>12336311
>>12336320
>>12336432
>>12336441
>>12336442
>>12337212
>>12337222
>>12337797
>>12337799
>>12337824
>>12337874
>>12337889
>>12338038
>>12338371
>>12338384
>>12338421
>>12338527
>>12338533
>>12338540
>>12338589
>>12338737
>>12338750
>>12338757
>>12338761
>>12338771
>>12338812
>>12338829
>>12338831
>>12338839
>>12338871
>>12338896
>>12338906
>>12338984
>>12338997
>>12339256
>>12341169
>>12341617
>>12341773
>>12341849
>>12342293
>>12342510
>>12342584
>>12342668
>>12342928
literally take your fucking meds you absolute schizoid

>>12342980
>So why did you claim he didn't do anything with it except name it?
He didn't do anything to change the property other than change what people call it.

>>12342980
>he was an actual mathematician and not schizophrenic.
I'm not schizophrenic and I am decent enough mathematician. You claim I have schizophrenia, the most debilitating of all psychiatric diseases, but you are unable to demonstrate it and your entertaining my thread is fair evidence that you don't really think I have that disease. I think the fact that you get paid to antagonize me is fair evidence that I'm not imagining your conspiracy against me.

>>12335583
he looks perfectly hinged to me

>>12342990
>Ad hominem is the name of a fallacy.
Yes, the ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem by itself is not a fallacy.

>Not really. If I say putting an apple in a basket twice causes the basket to have two apples in it, and you say, "Nuh-uh, it makes fifteen apples,"
The equivalent here would be you repeatedly saying "you're wrong and stupid" as a response to a perfectly reasonable argument. Yes, you lost. Get over it, schizo.

>>12343042
A common name of the ad hominem fallacy is "ad hominem."

> response to a perfectly reasonable argument.
I disagree that an argument which is obviously wrong can be classified as reasonable. For it to be reasonable, it should not be a plain misstatement of fact. Otherwise, "1+1=15 due to George Washington," would be a reasonable argument.

>>12343020
>He didn't do anything to change the property other than change what people call it.
Is that your final answer or are you going to change it again?

>I'm not schizophrenic
You're clearly schizophrenic, you have delusions of grandeur and extreme paranoid delusions. You literally think everyone is working against you and the government is creating fake cities to trap you. You think you're god and somehow related to various historical figures. These are extremely typical signs of schizophrenia. These delusions have caused you to fail in your academic career and become homeless. Yes, you are clearly schizo. If you met someone like yourself you would think they were schizo. Unfortunately, you also suffer from the delusion that there is nothing wrong with you.

>I think the fact that you get paid to antagonize me is fair evidence that I'm not imagining your conspiracy against me.
LOL, please tell me how I can get paid for this. Dumb schizo.

>>12343063
>A common name of the ad hominem fallacy is "ad hominem."
You incorrectly read the Hitchen quote as referring to a fallacy when it simply refers to ad hominem. Get over it schizo.

>I disagree that an argument which is obviously wrong can be classified as reasonable.
I don't see why you would be disagreeing with something I never said. I'm not interested in your delusions.

>>12343066
>Is that your final answer or are you going to change it again?
It's my first answer that I haven't changed.

>you have delusions of grandeur and extreme paranoid delusions
This is wrong. I am great and my extreme paranoia is not delusional.

>You literally think everyone is working against you
This is also wrong.

>the government is creating fake cities to trap you.
The cities are real, it's the impression of latitude and longitude which they bestow which is fake.

>You think you're god
My name is God. It is a fact. Why do you dispute that but not that my name is Jon?

>These are extremely typical signs of schizophrenia.
That's true but they are also typical signs of persecution. If you look at the symptoms which don't depend on the presence or absence of persecution, namely disordered thinking and spastic motor activity, I don't have that all. No matter how paranoid someone is, if they don't have disordered thinking then they aren't schizophrenic. I don't have disordered thinking.

>please tell me how I can get paid
I hope you have a lot of money in the bank on the day I get my hands on you.

>>12343020
Whether or not you have a diagnosis of schizophrenia, you undeniably suffer from some kind of neurological condition associated with psychosis. Any one of your dozens of incoherent paranoid infographics is evidence enough, as are your myriad papers making extremely grandiose claims about solving the deepest problems in math and theoretical physics.

That being said, >>12336392 has a point:
>This is glorious, kek. You could’ve been a writer instead, if you hadn’t decided on being a mathematician.

One complexity of psychosis is it doesn't necessarily hamper all aspects of cognition. Some very intelligent people remain intelligent in many ways even during psychotic states (like John Nash, who interestingly also was completely convinced he had solved the RH when he was psychotic). But that's the danger: the brain is unfathomably complex, and you have all of this power at your disposal but with a madman at the helm.

I know you won't listen to this but seriously consider entering an applied field where absolutely no one could deny your achievements. If you were to, say, run a successful machine learning company, for example, the psychosis wouldn't even matter because you could just point to your tangible, irrefutable results and your critics would be immediately invalidated (at least in that area).

Or you could be a writer or something.

Things like philosophy, math, physics, metaphysics are probably the absolute worst things for someone like you to go into. You could potentially even eventually have an esteemed reputation if you shifted to different sorts of domains where you can play to your strengths in a pragmatic manner. Then the infographics would just be a quirky thing on the side people would laugh at rather than them discarding everything you do.

>>12343075
I have acknowledged that I may have misread it but you insist that the victory he cites comes from the frivolousness of name calling rather than the classically fallacious argument known as "ad hominem." You have no reason to be so certain unless you are that man who is quoted, who I think is dead.

>>12343110
>undeniably suffer
I deny it.

>John Nash, who interestingly also was completely convinced he had solved the RH when he was psychotic
I deny that as well. Indeed, I doubt he was psychotic at all and his problem was probably real similar to mine: the problem documented in this cartoon from 1950:
https://vimeo.com/325126819

>no one could deny your achievements
It is always possible to to deny.

>Or you could be a writer or something.
I am a writer, a very good one.

> infographics
So then I suppose you deny that "golf rumors" was the rumor going through the country clubs that my research into negative time cosmology found an immediate application in quantum optics which yielded an over-unity "free energy" electrical device?

>>12343133
>I deny that as well. Indeed, I doubt he was psychotic at all and his problem was probably real similar to mine: the problem documented in this cartoon from 1950:
I don't know whether he was or wasn't, but later in his life his condition improved and he said he believed he was indeed suffering from psychosis, and when it comes to complex internal conditions like those I think there's probably no better source than the person themselves realizing and recognizing that's what was happening to them. I'd often consider that even more convincing than a diagnosis.

>It is always possible to deny.
Yes, it's possible, but it'd fall on deaf ears and would hold no weight. There are certain kinds of technical/scientific/engineering achievements that just exist independent of anything else. I honestly don't want to know what you think of Elon Musk but I'd consider that kind of an example; whatever one may think about his personal involvement, he has many tangible results to point to to demonstrate accomplishment, so a lot of criticism of him just bounces right off, and a high percentage of people agree that it bounces off.

>I am a writer, a very good one.
You generally have good writing skills (compared to the rest of 4chan anyway), but you're not a writer by trade. Maybe an internet shitposter by trade.

>>12343133
>So then I suppose you deny that "golf rumors" was the rumor going through the country clubs that my research into negative time cosmology found an immediate application in quantum optics which yielded an over-unity "free energy" electrical device?
Yes, I deny it, or at least I'm extremely skeptical of it. First, I don't know for sure, but I think ideas related to reversals/inversions/negations of time and such have floated around different physics things for a while. But I acknowledge there is some plausible chance they could've read your paper and gotten the idea from there.

The thing that's completely implausible is that Mueller or Khashogghi or Clinton have anything to do with your employment. This is a common thing that psychotic people do. I bet if you were to have some kind of incident today, you could and would find several things in the news or elsewhere which you would interpret as being connected to you or your situation. This is called delusion of reference, and it's probably the most classic hallmark of psychosis.

Sometimes this can also be due to a reversal of cause and effect: perhaps something you noticed in the news was consciously or unconsciously part of the impetus behind you deciding to demand the paperwork that day, especially since some of those stories had been building for some time.

Also, just some advice, you should stop wanting or threatening to kill people. No one's out to get you; even the people who are assholes. Do you feel this hatred for those people because you think they're paid as part of some plot to harm you, or do you really just want to kill anyone in general who may criticize you about anything? Because if it's the latter, that's obviously a major psychological problem.

>>12343175
>arguing with a schizoid
Schizoid is impossible to argue with.
Simply just say “fuck off schizoid”

>>12343167
>I don't know whether he was or wasn't
But for me... then you do know. Strange system of knowledge you have there.

>Yes, it's possible, but it'd fall on deaf ears and would hold no weight.
Most people believe truth comes from authority and will believe anything that comes from authority, no matter how obviously wrong or empty.

>I honestly don't want to know what you think of Elon Musk
I hate him and I want him and all of his relatives and sycophants to get tortured to death with sick and malicious cruelty, and a lot of the sycophants' relatives as well.

>you're not a writer by trade.
I am a writer by trade. The product I produce is documents.

>The thing that's completely implausible is that Mueller or Khashogghi or Clinton have anything to do with your employment.
What is implausible about it? Is it too far fetched for you to entertain the notion that they might be doin' the dirty when they aren't on TV? When a fake hurricane came through fake Atlanta in 2017, them moved me from the regular homeless shelter to on in the YMCA. I believe Hillary Clinton was stalking me there pretending to be an aide worker.

>delusion of reference
cum hoc ergo propter hoc is the usual name for the problem you're citing.

>Also, just some advice, you should stop wanting or threatening to kill people.
If I ever stop that, then means I'm a different God than the God of Abraham, and I don't want to be that. That is my worst nightmare.

>Do you feel this hatred for those people because
I hate them because they are heathens.

>do you really just want to kill anyone in general who may criticize you about anything?
I am grateful for the constructive criticism I receive. That is much different than detractive shit-flinging.

What have any of you done to rule out the possibility that Adolf Hitler is my grandfather, Anastasia Romanova is my grandmother, and Elizabeth Windsor is my mother, and that David is my ancestor and I am his male heir?

>>12342947
if you claim 2+2=5
and i say "fuck you idiot" and show it is 4,
it's impolite, but not ad hominem
AH is when your ONLY argument against someone's claim is that they are inferior as human beings somehow.

>>12343106
New anon here
Disordered thinking does not mean all your thinking is disordered, but that atleast part of it is.
You clearly have atleast some disordered thinking, regarding your jumping from real premises to delusional conclusions. The thoughts are not ordered properly in these cases.

The presence of non disordered thinking does not disprove the presence of disordered thinking. So your ability to do math, for example, which other people would call sound does not mean you are not schizophrenic.

If I took a schizophrenic who thought aliens were reading their thoughts, and asked them some simple questions, they could give me non-disorganized thoughts in response; but they are still schizophrenic.

the problem here is that any sane person who reads your posts on 4chan comes to the conclusion that you have some thought disorder, which is symptomatic of schizophrenia,

But a schizophrenic can't see their disordered thinking. Consider John Nash, who gave a presentation and all his colleagues saw he was experiencing schizophrenia. Yet Nash didnt see it himself.
This could well be you. A schizophrenic who cant recognise his own schizophrenia

>>12343687

It's funny to see that you took what I told you in another thread and imported it into the framework of your identity. You remember me saying how you weren't schizophrenic because a schizophrenic person can't differentiate reality from what their mind presents them? I said something sweet along the lines of "your mind can see the resonating chords of reality." probably a gross misquote but you took it straight to the ego. I know you argue with yourself in these threads. You forget you reddit space everything out and write way more than you need to for every single point. You also address yourself in a peculiar manner, "that's interesting tooker." I can't tell if its you embodying different personas or trying to persuade your audience via appealing to the mob. We know all those arguments you make against yourself are designed to illustrate how right you are. You only provide counter arguments where you have a counter argument already line up. The amount of research time it would take between some of them doesn't match your responses in real time. It's not possible for you to have complete knowledge of every one of the counterarguments that you present to yourself as someone else in that sort of manner. I think you deleted a few of your posts but I remember them giving away critical details that could trace your identity back to your thoughts. Why do you do this?

>>12343245