/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14814266
>Here we extend the catalog of the rudimentary analytical properties of...
>We define numbers in the neighborhood of infinity...
>We axiomatize the arithmetic of such numbers, prove...
>>>After developing the many underlying foundations, we present a basis for

Who is this "we"? There's a single author. If multiple people have contributed to this then they should all be authors. Otherwise the use of "we" doesn't make sense.

>>14814271
It's called the "authorial we." It's a common thing.

>>14814278
Post-hoc rationalization, it's only popular among ESL speakers that don't know better. I smack it out of my students when they start doing this nonsense. It makes the paper nearly unreadable.

End of page 23, beginning of page 24:
>Definition 3.2.1 defines the number in the center of X as the average of x1 and x2 if the average is computable

Pretty sure you mean "if the average is defined" which only doesn't happen in the case where x1 or x2 is plus or minus infinity. (Computable has a different meaning)

Page 24 is getting interesting.

>>14814271
"We" can refer to what is called the royal we or it can refer to the reader and I jointly progressing through the material. The paper reads the same either way. On the former, consider Higgs' seminal paper as one example from many demonstrating that this grammar is standard in scholarly communication.

>>14814266
People always call you a crank but I don't think that's fair. This paper is good. I think the language needs to be polished (not just the we thing, but "computable" and other things I'm sure are in there) but this looks like a solid contribution.

Do you have anyone to help you read and refine this besides 4chan trolls?

>>14814279
It's a common linguistic resource, you clown.
Every time I see someone unironically using "I" on a paper I cringe. Either go full impersonal (best) or use we (second best). Using the first person in a paper is some kind of humanities auto-fellatio shit.

Get real Johnny/"Tooker" that doesn't include a numerical methods approach which would include the overall missing integrable cardiod approach

>>14814294
full impersonal > first person > not writing the paper at all > using "we" inappropriately

>>14814292
Higgs uses "we" once in this whole paper, referring to a calculation done in a paper that has multiple authors.

>>14814293
>Do you have anyone to help you read and refine this besides 4chan trolls?
Occassionally some helpful 4chan posters.

>>14814286
I mean what I wrote. Words without contextual definitions take their dictionary definitions, e.g.: the instance of "average" which precedes computable. I believe the dictionary will indicate synonymous usage with your case of "defined" and point of nuance is overly pedantic to the point of absurdity.

"Can you get real and kill a Jew dude is what I mean??"/

R.I.P. your dad my amigo though time to move on. Karl Otness of Harvard, visitors from Guatemala, Central America to (Wild card here) San Leandro Psychiatric Hospital, San Leandro, California. 1994

>>14814304
I disagree.

>write paper negating RH
>audience more interested in prose

Ice and fire
Kids Next Door, Battle Stations!

>>14814316
FYI I deleted my post because I wrote it like a condescending twat

Negation of RH with physics-tier rigor.

>>14814324
>>write paper negating RH
You negate RH on the extension of the real numbers which you define, but RH may still be true pre-extension.

Nah to solve the Riemann hypothesis you needed to solve the Continuum Hypothesis i.e. work with a 100% compendium knowing that I'm not falling on deaf ears here the main jolt of things to the point are that I'm the true winner of the 100 prizes of Harvard Harvard Harvard and not "McLovin" on "grubbin" i.e. 4chan junk

Fully rigorous negation of RH dependent on a reasonable but unproven proposition.

>>14814338
I mean, you're right in that RH would be false if you added points at infinity to the domain of the Riemann zeta function, but that's not in the hypothesis that Riemann stated.

>>14814338
That's incomplete and the overall original Pdf extended version is wrong/off truly incorrect because the exponentiation isn't in singular, is dipolaric, and doesn't capture the real numbers as a set itself, itself a definable word here as "hapsoid" itself where you see the continuum and you don't continue as a spectral

Fully rigorous negation of RH without starting from reinventing the wheel. The figure is where the John Titor logo comes from, btw.

>>14814334
I didn't extend the real numbers. I did it in
[eqn]\mathbb{R}=\big(-\infty,\infty\big)[/eqn]
which is accepted for standard analysis. I would say you obviously haven't read the paper but you probably have and being stupid on purpose.

>>14814342
I didn't add those points. I explicitly excluded them with
[eqn]\mathbb{R}=\big(-\infty,\infty\big)[/eqn]

>>14814347
You may be talking about another paper titled "Real Numbers in the Neighborhood of Infinity" which I have not posted here to emphasize my better papers. The paper you cite is not incomplete. The gaps are closed by the proposition: Prop 1.8. Perhaps you did not read the abstract and you are not aware of the result being reported in the "quick" paper you criticize?

Hey /sci/ board/4chan world of actual book readers/not Jews/niggers or "extremists" of "pollution" or "caricatures"

my android army has begun protecting me and Guatemala, Central America has been Guatemala Azul, Central America since 2021

Enjoy your vegan world align with God and don't go against the Bible

>>14814100
https://victorbluefive.blogspot.com

Just going to go out on a tree branch here and say that Bierbach the "Mathematician" and "Nazi" is sort of just like a "McShit" idea on that "Gordon Danning" recent SF Bay Area punk circa 2021 "Neo Nazis Americans" and "White trash Jews shit" itself a phony character but possibly a friend from back then bye Jorge Ubico

>>14814338
Quicker Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis on the extended real line:

[math] \zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^s} = \frac{1}{1^s} + \frac{1}{2^s} + \frac{1}{3^s} + \cdots [/math]

[math] \frac{1}{n^{\widehat{\infty}}} = 0 \forall n \in \mathbb{N} [/math]

So
[math] \zeta(\widehat{\infty}) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^{\widehat{\infty}}} = \sum_{n=1}^\infty 0 = 0 [/math]

Therefore [math]\widehat{\infty}[/math] is a nontrivial zero, contradicting the Riemann hypothesis.

I am also the inventor of the time circuit.

>>14814362
>We construct time arrow spinor states
>We
>Single author
ngmi

>>14814358
>>14814357
Thread over kinda I think it's just Johnny Nash Jr. saying that his dissertation was perfectly fine. On an upperhand note the new news people people people should try to find out about is that Hoty Romans of power and grace are very real and that are 100% friends with Guatemala Azul, Central America as of its 2021 stuff. Proverbs 21 bye. We changed the flag of Guatemala to the Guatemala Azul, Centro America SUCHITEPEQUEZ province. Later. Motherfuck Tom Cruise/ABM Jennifer Connelly and Barbara Stuart and UCSF and Heather Anne Bradley and Dee Blunt if you can

>>14814359
Infinity hat is not in R or C and your result does not address RH. RH regards the contuation of the series onto C but not beyond. If you don't know this (unlikely) your input is unlikely to be constructive. Since you probably do know it and posted a wilfull falsehood anyways, you may want to reevaluate the outcomes you anticipate will follow.

>>14814370
That's a nice color.

Consider what one would do with a time machine. Then consider my ancestors.

>>14814271
Go back to /lit/. You've obviously never read any math related text.

>>14814920
I've read plenty of math texts and single authors using "we" either have poor english or poor thinking abilities