/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12456629
its not my fault you're a -

>neighborhood of infinity
into the trash it goes

>>12456629
Tooker, you are already preaching to the choir here. We all know that you deserve the 1 Million. We all know it's not your fault she is an n-word. You need to preach this outside of /sci/. We are basically your base.

>>12456659
>We are basically your base.
That must be why you don't buy my book then.

>>12456637
So you'd throw these standard undergrad notes on complex analysis from MIT into the trash? Sometimes with your stupid rhetoric it's like you think I am the discoverer of the the neighborhood of infinity though I am not.

>>12456629
>we should solve the RH by fundamentally redefining what real numbers are, for the sole purpose of making the RH trivially false
That's not how this works. We care about what mathematical properties are implied by the objects we actually use. We don't care about the properties of your arbitrarily redefined numbers unless you show that they lead to an interesting new theory in their own right. The RH is NOT a statement about the number system you have constructed. It's a statement about the objects it actually refers to.

Even if there WAS any legitimate, good-faith ambiguity, as you claim, you should still be able to realize the million dollar prize is meant to go with the version of the RH that's 1) actually difficult and 2) actually fucking interesting.

Listing out all the reasons you're wrong and putting "Stupid criticisms" next to it is not the argument you think it is.

>>12456629
There is this destitute blogger who claims to have proven P != NP by showing that some combinatorical function he invented is one-way. Apparently he's finishing up his proof now. I have no idea if he's legit or a schizo, but I'm checking up from time to time and rooting for the guy.

>>12457673
>the sole purpose of making the RH trivially false
You are certainly not paraphrasing me. They way I arrived at real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity was that I needed a finite distance between branes in my cosmological model (pic) such that the gravitational interaction between them was identically zero. Furthermore, I had already disproved RH in 2017
>On The Riemann Zeta Function
>https://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073
before I had begun to consider what form such numbers would take, and then after I had devised those numbers and used them in a theorem related to trigonometry
>Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
>https://vixra.org/abs/1809.0234
and only later did I reformulated my old RH disproof in the new language I had developed. RH was the last thing on my mind when I devised this notation. You are wrong and stupid.

>fundamentally redefining what real numbers are
I used Euclid's definition. It was the number field crowd who fundamentally redefined it. Furthermore, they did not mean to redefine it and they thought they were preserving everything Euclidean in the axioms of number fields. It was an error on their part that the neighborhood of infinity is admitted by the Euclidean axioms but not by the field axioms.

> RH is NOT a statement about the number system you have constructed.
RH is a question about prime numbers. People have been trying to solve that question in the neighborhood of the origin for the better part of 200 years. What makes you say, "We should not even try to solve this problem in the neighborhood of infinity where we have new arithmetic axioms that will support new analytical methods?" How can you tell that the neighborhood of infinity will bear no fruit when you haven't even had one thousand people doing the analysis professionally for even 100 years yet?

>the million dollar prize is meant to go with the version
The million dollars is related more to the question about the prime numbers.

>>12457673
>the sole purpose of making the RH trivially false
You are certainly not paraphrasing me. They way I arrived at real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity was that I needed a finite distance between branes in my cosmological model (pic) such that the gravitational interaction between them was identically zero. Furthermore, I had already disproved RH in 2017
>On The Riemann Zeta Function
>https://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073
before I had begun to consider what form such numbers would take, and then after I had devised those numbers and used them in a theorem related to trigonometry
>Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
>https://vixra.org/abs/1809.0234
and only later did I reformulated my old RH disproof in the new language I had developed. RH was the last thing on my mind when I devised this notation. You are wrong and stupid.

>fundamentally redefining what real numbers are
I used Euclid's definition. It was the number field crowd who fundamentally redefined it. Furthermore, they did not mean to redefine it and they thought they were preserving everything Euclidean in the axioms of number fields. It was an error on their part that the neighborhood of infinity is admitted by the Euclidean axioms but not by the field axioms.

> RH is NOT a statement about the number system you have constructed.
RH is a question about prime numbers. People have been trying to solve that question in the neighborhood of the origin for the better part of 200 years. What makes you say, "We should not even try to solve this problem in the neighborhood of infinity where we have new arithmetic axioms that will support new analytical methods?" How can you tell that the neighborhood of infinity will bear no fruit when you haven't even had one thousand people doing the analysis professionally for even 100 years yet?

>the million dollar prize is meant to go with the version
The million dollars is related more to the question about the prime numbers.

>>12457673
>Listing out all the reasons you're wrong and putting "Stupid criticisms" next to it is not the argument you think it is.
It's not an argument at all, shitcunt. If you don't even know what an argument is, then I don't think your opinion on RH is very trustworthy.

Here's an argument: For prime numbers P, numbers of the form INFHAT-P have the exact same distribution as the prime numbers. Since anything that can be learned about the distribution of INFHAT-P will tells us something about P, it will be a worthwhile endeavor to study the neighborhood of infinity because the axioms of arithmetic are different there and that might provide some new tool to supplement the 160 years of failed analyses restricted to the neighborhood of the origin.

Here's another argument. Your supposition, "The neighborhood of infinity should be discounted categorically without study," should be discounted categorically because arithmetic in the neighborhood of infinity is slightly different than in the neighborhood of the origin, and those differences provide ground on which to develop new analytical methods.

>>12457724
>>12457752
>>12457758

LEFT THUMB ZAPPER

Hey, guys. I propose a new game. Instead of rolling for gets, we roll for death threats from Tooker. I'll roll first:

You define a real number as a cut in a Hausdorff space but never define what a cut is. In Definition 2.1.4, you're merely stating that the interval (-inf,inf) is equal to itself and not actually defining anything. That's without taking into account that the interval doesn't even make any sense because Hausdorff spaces are not ordered in general.

>>12458375
>but never define what a cut is.
A cut is defined in Def 2.1.4 as something which satisfies a certain equation which you might rightly call "the cut equation."

>you're merely stating that the interval (-inf,inf) is equal to itself
No the equation that does that is [math](-\infty,\infty)=(-\infty,\infty) [/math].

>not actually defining anything
The definition of a cut is that is something which satisfies the given equation. George Washington is not a cut in a line because [math](-\infty,\infty)\neq(-\infty,\text{GW}]\cup(\text{GW},\infty)[/math] To the contrary, sqrt{2} is a cut.

>Hausdorff spaces are not ordered in general.
The order is imposed by the chart given in Def 2.1.2. By the time we get to Def 2.1.4, we already have a space, a chart, a metric, and an interval representation of the space. It looks like your solicitation for a death threat was constructed around you ignoring almost all of the information presented in the articles with numbers less than 2.1.4.

>>12458375
>That's without taking into account
That's you detracting without taking into account that I said it is a cut in a *number* line which has properties beyond the Hausdorff properties of simple lines.

I can't rightly say how I would line up with my scholarly forebearers whose work was accomplished without benefit of my modern perspective on things but I really am that much better than everyone else who's doing it today.

>>12457389
Tooker I barely read the books I want to read so I probably wouldn't read your mystery book that I don't even get.

Here is what I'd buy though: An autobiography. There are so many parts of Tooker lore that are either missing or not well documented. If you were to write an autobiography then I'm sure that just in /sci/ you'd have at least 200 buyers. Who knows in the other forums you frequent. I'd even pay extra for a hard-copy and double extra for getting it signed by the author.

>>12458772
>There are so many parts of Tooker lore that are either missing or not well documented.
I was watching Ozark today and the wife said they were going to move to "Mullenbimby"

>>12457399
>he thinks MIT uses the same retard definition as him
honestly pathetic

>>12458993
It is the exact same.

>>12459114
Are any "neighborhoods of infinity" bounded?

RH was proven true. Someone posted the solution here a few times. You decompose the Riemann into real sums and solve the system of those sums, showing the only possible real component is 1/2.

>>12459114
>it is the exact same
>except for the fact we disagree on what the plane is
youre still retarded

>>12459259
i distinctly remember that since i was the one who showed that some of the derived equations were contradictory
then they just added hundreds of more equations in to bury their mistakes

>>12459151
I don't know what it means for a neighborhood to be bounded but all sub intervals of a connected interval certainly do have the least upper bound property.

>>12459259
Unfortunately, I didn't read the 14 page version but the 11 page version has an error in the reasoning at the start of the 11th page. The final page of the shorter version probably wasn't even written by the same author. If you post the whole paper, I can point out the error but I don't recall exactly what it was. It was some non-sequitur on the last page of the shorter version.

>>12459714
I did not verify the equations step by step on my read through but everything about the even and odd decompositions looked like stuff I've done before and nothing jumped out at me as obviously wrong until the final page of the shorter version. However, it is possible that some of the earlier equations were wrong as well. Someone should post the paper and we can have an actual science thread instead of
>by the axiom that you are always wrong
>you are wrong

LEFT THUMB ZAPPER