/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12696094
something with integrals idc
get laid

>>12696094
1+2+3... = -1/12

>>12696094
Some jewish nonsence. Think about it, can you buy riemann hypothesis amount of apples?

It's false.

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

Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030

>>12696094
The hypothesis says that for all inputs to the extension of the zeta function in [math]\mathbb{C}[/math], zeta(x) is only zero if x is equal to 0.5+bi, for any real b.
Note it asks this solely for [math]\mathbb{C}[/math], not [math]\mathbb{C} + \hat{\infty}[/math] which is a different set outside the scope of the conjecture.

>>12696740
Also note that I use C in my proof and not C + inf-hat. Sometimes the shitcunts try to suggest that I'm not using C but I make the statement at least ten ten times that infinity is not in the domain of the RZF. Don't let the shitcunts confuse you about what the problem is:
https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/official_problem_description.pdf

Pic related, the shitcunts final argument is that new methods are not allowed. They are jealous of my superiority and they try to say that I modified the domain when what I really did was to develop notation for describing a region of the domain which the people who didn't solve RH had neglected to consider.

Here's a nice example I have. Let S = {1,2,3,4,5}. Now Consider x = 7-4. Is x an element of S? Yes, obviously x is in S. However, these people, >>12696740, will say
>nah
>the question is about S, not S + 7
>you can't use x, it's not in S.

These people are as stupid as the are jealous.

Let's see if the person monitoring my posts closely enough to shit on my solution every time I post it will pretend not to see this and then not answer me.

>>12696740
Suppose there is a function f of one scalar variable x such that the domain of f is the closed connected interval [0,3]. Is the number x=7-4 in the domain? What about x=3? I anticipate that you will say something like
>nuh-uh
>7-4=3 is a special case
>there is a numeral "3"
>its existence somehow modifies the equivalence relation such that 3 can be in the domain but 7-4 isn't in the domain despite the fact that 3=7-4.
Since I anticipate such a stupid response, what about pi/2? Is x=pi/2 in the domain of f, shitcunt? We can only express this number as an operation on pi which is not in the domain of f.
>inb4 nuh-uh
And it is the same with inf_hat. Although inf_hat itself is not in (-inf,inf), just like pi is not in [0,3], the number x=inf_hat-1 is in (-inf,inf) just like x=pi-1 is in [0,3]. You are so stupid you literally disgust me.

>>12696107
>>12696109
>>12696327
The utter fucking state of /sci/

>>12697499
Cool
Post this on r/math and arXiv!

>>12696094
A proof of prime distribution based on a graph against the integers and their corresponding imaginary components.

>>12697582
This board needs more moderation. I get banned from /pol/ for talking about religion but these idiots can say this shit here? The whole reason we have /pol/ is to keep these people away from everyone else.

>>12697605
Sign up to be a mod

This proof contradicts the archemedian property. By saying there exists a real number that is greater than all natural numbers, and thus such a number, (infhat - b) cannot exist

>>12696094
No joke. Tooker may have the closest thing to a solution to the Riemann Hypothesis. But he doesn’t get taken seriously because he happens to also be a full blown schizophrenic.

>>12696094
A claim equivalent to

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

for all n>0,
where [math]H_n=\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{1}{k}[/math] and where [math]\sigma(n) [/math] is the sum of divisors of [math]n[/math].

>>12696094
A claim equivalent to

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

for all n>0,
where
[math]H_n=\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{1}{k}[/math]
and where [math]\sigma(n) [/math] is the sum of divisors of [math]n[/math].

>>12697637
Agreed. His biggest tool is a formal definition of infinity in the reals. Mathfags seem too autistic to do that even though it's already around for complex analysis. While I don't think Tooker's proof is an actual proof, I do think it's on the right track. Mathfags are basically trying to solve this with both hands tied behind their backs.

>>12696107
>something with integrals idc
>get laid
>>12697582
>>>12696107
>The utter fucking state of /sci/

LOL! Such a comprehensive Science & Math board... integrals.. IDC.. get laid..
looool

>>12697589
I'm banned on both of them and my internet doesn't connect to servers outside of Antarctica, as you are well aware.

>>12697499
>see this and then not answer me

>>12697637
>he happens to also be a full blown schizophrenic.

>>12697656
>Agreed.

>>12697625
The reason you claim that but do not demonstrate it is because it i false and cannot be demonstrated. If you did try to demonstrate it, you would probably use some statement that got written down for the first time more than 2000 years after Euclid and Archimedes died, and then you would call that the Archimedes property of real numbers, and you would say that the statement from 50 years ago is the ancient property which the neighborhood of infinity does not conform to. Then when you were arguing that the the statement from 50 years ago really is the ancient Archimedes property of real numbers, you would probably cite Mathworld or some notes on faculty page, and you would never cite Euclid's Elements where the ancient Archimedes property of real numbers is recorded as Definition 4 of Book 5.

>oh but muh monoidal teichmuller ring bracket
>of lexicographically left-bifurcled rectangles
>I forgot about subtracting
>oops

>>12697499
Actually, [math]\pi-1\not\in[0,3][/math] because someone, at one point, invented the symbol pi and bestowed it with the properties we all now understand that it has.

Tooker's solution obviously fails because Riemann had in mind for his 1859 hypothesis the definition of C extending R based on Dedekind's 1872 cuts and/or Cantor's 1899 Cauchy sequences. Riemann just never mentioned it though that he had already invented those things in 1859 because he didn't want to hog all of the credit. Tooker numbers require a trivial revision to the 1899 Cantor and 1872 Dedekind definitions which Riemann was implicitly using in 1859 so that's why Tooker is wrong.

>>12697841
>So I gave her the ol' monoidal teichmeuller.

>>12696623
>the number infinity

>>12700085
why not? it's perfectly well-defined.

>>12699935
>Tooker's wrong because he uses a more formalized version of the Reals.
Wouldn't that just imply Riemann's hypothesis was based on a faulty understanding of the Reals, and that when we use a better understanding of said Reals, the hypothesis is debunked?

>>12697605
it's not my fault you're a nigger

>>12700085
>>12700089

>>12697414
>neighborhood of infinity
into the trash it goes

>>12700089
1) assume inf is a number
2) inf is larger than any number
3) hurr durr inf>inf

>>12700222
When you write that, some people might think you're implying that I invented the neighborhood of infinity which I got from the undergrad MIT math curriculum which you would throw in the trash.

>>12700245
Also note that for R being any natural number, 100% of the area of complex plane is in the neighborhood of infinity.

>>12697582
No fun allowed

>>12700245
>MIT math
show their support for your rant theory then

>>12700264
>Stevin invented decimal numbers
>Show his support for Wiles' FLT proof then

>>12700264
Also, if you think the MIT math curriculum belongs in the trash, what good would showing their support do?

>>12700274
lol

>>12696094
One of my bitches.

>>12700282
Tooker is one super busy man, always doing the work of 4 men. I wonder why?

>beautifully executed meme btw

>>12700283
You people who say that I ought to confirm your idea of sexual morality are so stupid, I'm going to kill all of you. You should know that if your idea of what God says about sexuality doesn't align with what I say, then your idea is wrong. All of people who think getting your dick wet is a sin are wrong. The sexual immorality is when you stab my in the penis and electrocute my it, not when I get it sucked it. It is you all's idea of morality that is perverse, not mine. I'm going to exterminate you especially, shitcunt. A slut is a woman.

>he doesn't try so he deserves to be alone
>he does try so he's a slut and deserves to get electrocuted
>God is wrong, not us

>>12700378
>you who use language in ways I don't like I'm going to kill
That is some amazing sensitivity OR patience you have there Tooker. Personally I define a slut as a variable or temporary store of identity in order to aid some multivariate equation that needs extra processing power to resolve.

>>12700382
What, in truth, denies OR provides power? Personally I would say hydration, either being adequately hydrated OR the act of hydrating. I am curious to learn your interpretation though, fellow polynomial personality processor professor.

>>12700397
Your friends aren't going to be so casual about it.

>>12697605
No you glownigger. We do not need more suppression of voices in the science community because science is inherently radical. 4chan is the perfect place for that.

>>12697589
>post to the ivory tower!
""""no""""

>>12700378
Take your meds tooker. You're having an episode. Unsurprisingly, you have your episodes when people don't validate your kookery.

>>12700482
The wager you make with your life shows that you do not have a good understanding of odds.