/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15299048

>>15299031
How fast are 4chinners going to get triggered by this?

https://www.zmescience.com/science/math/nigerian-riemann-hypothesis-19112015/

This is getting out of hand, even Tooker is worrying now

>>15299031
>"Leading British media, including the Daily Mail, the BBC and the Daily Telegraph jumped the gun ran the story that Enoch has cracked the problem."

Isnt this a testament to how incredibly unimportant and obscure mathematics are to the masses? Imagine the media running an easily verifiable as fake story about celebrity gossip, there would be massive outrage

>>15299048
Disproving RH for your made up class of numbers is meaningless

>>15299048
Nice infinity hat you got there. Can you provide proof it exists?

>>15299048
>the number infinity, which like the imaginary number is not a real number

>>15299058
>i hate 4chan
why are you here

>>15299048
At least this is something you can actually engage with

>>15299031
>riemann hypothesis
>real life applications : none
Wow, it's literally nothing but another mathematician self-jerkoff session, literally who cares

How many people have solved the riemann hypothesis now?
1. Atiyah
2. Tooker
3. Nigerian professor
Who else?

>>15299168
It's not a made up set of numbers. It's subset of the reals. What I made up was the notation for denoting them.

>>15300381

>>15300465
John Nash, famously. Also some Indian guy

>>15300465
Gary probably thinks he has a viable solution.

>>15299050
>>15300497
Based Tooker. Thanks for sharing. How much math and physics will I need to know in order to understand your books?

I cant disproof this disproof. I assume it actually solved the problem. I also like the latex typesetting and the flow of the essay. I like him more than the western söymaths.

>>15300719
>I cant disproof this disproof.
I can. His definition of ζ is ill-formed in the critical strip inside which the entire Riemann hypothesis takes place.

>>15300490
>neighborhood of infinity
Why would infinity have a neighborhood?

>>15300719
Is there a link to >>15299031 somewhere? All I see in thread is a bunch of tonka spam

>>15300745
Ask Newton (I don't actually remember who discovered the notion)

>>15300746
literally posted the proof right after

>>15300758
??? This >>15299048 is just tooker being his usual schizo self. The name in the OP pic is Enoch

>>15300745
>>15300752
It's due to the structure [math]\mathbb{R}^+=\big(0,\infty\big)[/math]. Zero obviously has a neighborhood and infinity has to too due to the invariance of connected intervals under permutations of the labels of their endpoints.

>>15300658
Almost none. A passing undergraduate familiarity should suffice. I try to start from the very near the beginning in the books, unlike the papers where I presume my audience will be subject matter experts.

>>15300719
>I also like the latex typesetting and the flow of the essay.
I am extremely pleased with the fractional distance paper due to the nice flow and typesetting. Although I probably have better results than my RH result, I think Fractional Distance is my best paper (or short book.)

>>15300789

>>15299031
HE'S SOLVED IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


YES GET THE FUCK IN THERE, YOU LOT ARE FUCKING DUMB AS FUCK, DON'T TELL ME OTHERWISE.

>>15300495
what's with all these axioms?

>why does the written document contain so many words?

>>15300901
no retard, you keep appealing to "axioms". If that was a valid proof strategy your paper might as well be five words
>Axiom 1.1. RH is false

>>15300907
You're arguing with an actual homeless schizophrenic btw.

>bro, just do analysis without axioms, bro
>bro, come on

>>15300907
>prove it ... without using axioms!

>>15299174
I have no idea what that infinity hat even is. This guy's just here asserting that some numbers "minutely less than infinity" obviously just exist.

>>15300930
Numbers which are quite less than infinity (positive ones) also exist.

>>15300930
Well, he explains what he means. Infinity hat is an infinity without the "absorption property". He needs this to make sense of expressions like "infinity hat minus a". Unfortunately, the properties of infinity hat immediately imply the absorption property, so no infinity hat can exist.

>i didn't read it and i don't know what it says
>it's clearly wrong

>>15300926
yeah the classic axiom
>If f is a holomorphic function defined everywhere on an open connected set D, if there exists more than one z0 in D such that f(z0) =? and if every p is such that |z0 - p| is in R0, then f is constant on D or the set containing all z0 in D is totally disconnected
learned that in day 1 of complex analysis

>>15300950
>getting filtered by complex analysis

>>15300953
I just said I learned it on day 1, reading comprehensionlet

>>15300943
>Unfortunately, the properties of infinity hat immediately imply the absorption property, so no infinity hat can exist.
For you, I must make reference to the definition of algebra: the study of mathematical symbols and the rules for manipulating them. Whether or not you think infinity hat has the absorptive property, the rule for the hat infinity is that one must not execute the absorptive operation. This is like the familiar standard under which one must not factor out 2πi from the complex exponential (pic). It just messes things up if you simplify too early. The hat makes an "algebraic" rule about that for numbers in the neighborhood of infinity.

>>15300490
your infinity_hat is contradictory. Combining 1.11 and 1.12 you can trivially prove that for any numbers a, b with a != b that a = b by trivially combining the two equations.

The mistake was sort of made in Theorem 1.11 where your divergent limits can't be added like that, i.e the limit of (1/x - a) is just infinity from above and non convergent when approached from "either end" as you are doing.

The real issue is that you just pulled infinity_hat out your arse. There's no "need" for that "number" to exist, you need to prove it. Also you need to define what it means for a number to be "like infinity but without the absorbtion property".

Finally, your whole section on defining the real numbers was completely unnecessary. Anybody doing research on this problem knows what the real numbers are in multiple constructions because you need to know basic analysis to be close to the field. You also didn't really use cuts for any novel purpose at all (so why mention them?) and you defined them in a useless circular way that requires you to have to already know what the real numbers are to define intervals.

>>15300966
If you think it can be done trivially, I encourage you to do it and prove me wrong in front of everyone. My hypothesis is that you say it can be done but do not do it because it cannot be done and you are a liar.

Furthermore, if you continue to produce word-level arguments without producing the proof which you call "trivial," then I will take that as evidence supporting my hypothesis.

>>15300976
(hat - a) / (hat - b) = 1
hat - a = 1 *(hat -b) = hat - b
(hat - a) - (hat - b) = 0

>>15300982
Looks interesting, but why don't you try publishing it somewhere if it's so good in your words

>>15300976
Take positive real numbers [math]a \neq b[/math]. These are less than the large natural number [math]n = floor(max(a,b)) + 1[/math] that appears in all your hypotheses but is completely absent from the proofs.

Theorem 1.11 gives
[math](\hat\infty - a) - (\hat\infty - b) = b - a[/math]

Theorem 1.12 gives
[math]\frac{(\hat\infty - a)}{(\hat\infty - b)} = 1[/math]
From which we get
[math](\hat\infty - a) = (\hat\infty - b)[/math]
Subtracting the right hand side from the left hand side and comparing with 1.11 we get
[math] b - a = (\hat\infty - a) - (\hat\infty - b) = 0 [/math]

But this immediately implies [math]a = b[/math] which is a contradiction to the choice of a and b.

>>15300985
On the second line, you have assumed that (hat-b) has a multiplicative inverse. Did you make an axiom for that? I didn't make an axiom for that. Are you referring to the field axioms? If so, why are you doing that when I do not refer to them in the paper?

In fact, if you criticize the long paper with the most magnificent standard of rigor, and not the "quick" paper which emphasizes brevity, I show that such numbers cannot possibly have multiplicative inverses. If you would study what I wrote, you would see that only numbers in the neighborhood of the origin form a number field while numbers in the neighborhood of infinity are extra-special and have properties that are probably too hard for you. Because you have not studied, it doesn't seem stupid to you to implicitly invoke the field axioms in the neighborhood of infinity.

Basically, you are stupid. You're just trying to say my work is wrong without studying it first. You have decided it's wrong a priori so your opinion on it is worthless.

>>15301015
>On the second line, you have assumed that (hat-b) has a multiplicative inverse
No I didn't. I assumed that your division still followed the rule
>if a/b = x, then a = x*b
is this no longer true of division in your extended system?

>>15301015
There's only one real number without a multiplicative inverse, and that's 0.

If you're asserting a system where other such numbers exist then it's not the real numbers, it's something else. You can't throw away the entirety of established mathematics to substitute an easier environment to solve your problem.

>>15300990
The reason I no longer try to do that is because I believe I'm stuck in a facility in Antarctica where I cannot communicate with legitimate publishers. For example, I do not believe that the arXiv moderation staff told me that my paper had "no scholarly content" in it. I believe the Antarctic jews, including the Antarctic catholics who are only uncircumcised Antarctic jews, intercepted my manuscript submission and sent this rejection to mock me.

>>15300999
>From which we get
No, you don't get that. To get that, you first have to assume that numbers in the neighborhood of infinity obey the axioms of a complete ordered number field, or some other axioms which bestow a multiplicative inverse on such numbers.

Please let us avoid the degeneration into kindergarten-level stupidity.

>>15301022
>There's only one real number without a multiplicative inverse, and that's 0.
Who told you that and where is your proof?

>>15301031
When you say "Real numbers" you mean the only complete ordered field up to isomorphism.

If you're not working in the real numbers, then you've not solved the Riemann Hypothesis. It's as simple as that.

If your magic "neighbourhood of infinity" numbers don't obey the axioms of a complete ordered field then they can't be Real numbers, almost by definition.

>by the axiom that you are always wrong...
Since I can see that this thread will hardly be a scholarly forum, let me post my parting comment. Earlier, they said, "What the fuck are you doing listing all these axioms, moran?" Now they try to sneak in their own axioms without stating them to "prove" me wrong. The fact is, RH is false and these tards are tarded.

>>15301040
> the only complete ordered field
No. Euclid had a definition of the reals in place for thousands of years before the field axioms got introduced, and RH had been an open question for decades by then. A main result of my work is to show that the field axioms do not perfectly encapsulate Euclid as they were initially thought to. Euclid allows the neighborhood of infinity but the field axioms don't. Since Riemann had never heard of the field axioms which didn't exist when he published, they are out of scope for this problem.

It's obvious that you people are just shitting on me without carefully studying my work so yall can go fuck yourselves. You should probably kill yourselves too.

>>15301053
Whether or not one believes in the neighborhood or infinity, I will be surprised if anyone denies that the modernists were only thinking about the neighborhood of the origin when they replaced Euclid with the field axioms.

>>15300925

>>15301081
You keep referring to that book. Have you tried reading the rest of the chapter? He goes on to prove all the field axioms *including* inverses of non zero numbers.

pic related

>>15301101
Yes, I read the first several chapters in my analysis class. He already assumed that R is a field before the page you posted so I don't know what your point is. Do you mean his assumption is not obviously self-contradictory? If that's what you mean, then I agree. The assumption that R is a field seems reasonable at first. My point is that it ceases to seem that way under further scrutiny.
>the author literally says his axioms are a fraud
>so clearly you can see they aren't a fraud
I think one of the main purposes in putting me in Antarctica is so that I am surrounded by mental midgets who can't understand the high level ideas I write about and wish to discuss.

>>15301101
>to prove all the field axioms
If they could be proven, they would be theorems. They are axioms because they can't be proven, at least not without more axioms. Enough already with being tarded please.

>>15301104
Don't worry bro, all the people doubting you are actually the same person. Unlike us.

>>15299048
>the number infinity
opinion discarded

>>15301148

>retards who don't know the difference between numbers and real numbers

>>15301153
>it's true because I improperly combine three separate definitions
keep trying

>>15301159
In what way did I combine them improperly?

>>15301163
Stop.

>>15301178
I'll give you a hint: written language is not the same as mathematical language

>>15301193
You'll speak in riddles like an asshole?

>>15301211
Yes, because you use math like an asshole

>>15299165
LOL

>>15301211
i think he means that in human language one can declare that an alien oni came down to earth to suck their cock, math language?, not such liberties, prove me wrong though, id love to see math for "space oni came down to earth to suck your cock", i mean, i know that you will just dismiss this as nonsense, but that is the difference between human language and math language, we want to avoid to the cock-sucking space oni's in math(as boring as that seems to me)

>>15301217
Unlike you, I use math, word guy.

>>15301153
>a number is an element of an ordered set

>>15301248
I agree.

>>15300976
"word level arguments are useless without proof"
>>15301153
>some shitty word level arguments

>>15301264
You've posted a jew and I think you have to ignore the images and PDFs I posted to make the implication your jew is supposed to imply. Maybe you're looking for a non-word definition of the word "number," which is also pretty jewish.
>posts a jew

>>15301249
Does it have to be a totally ordered set or are partially ordered numbers okay?

>>15301272
If you mean to ask me to google it for you, I decline your invitation.

>>15301275
No I'm asking your personal mathematical opinion

>>15301267
Cool response, I hope the antarctic rabbis or whatever set you free soon anon, I didn't read the images or PDFs because I'm a math-illiterate biologist

>>15301280
Although it is interesting to me that you fully state that there is in fact a highest number, and it's (at least one of the) infinity(s), seems wack.

>>15301277
My opinion is that anyone who thinks infinity might not be a number is very stupid and poorly educated.

>>15301285
That's not the question I asked though. My opinion is that people who struggle to comprehend basic questions are also stupid and poorly educated

>>15301289
You should infer from that that I'm telling you to go fuck yourself.

>he's not telling me to fuck off
>he's just stupid
>where's the perfect jew to post for that?

>>15301298
and you ignore my post because? >>15301234

>>15301300
Yes.

I like that in addition to lay people not understanding or agreeing with anything he's saying being told they're too dumb, this is apparently the case with professional mathematicians too.

>>15300490
No real numbers exist.

>>15300745
>>15300752
>>15300789
It's because blown-out mathematicians with abstracts psychosis have yet again confused fantasy with reality in order to prove hyper-specific thought experiments that have absolutely *zero* real-world application.

Infinity, in action, has no neighborhood. In action, there are no infinities larger than any other infinities. In action, infinity has no end, nor beginning.

Math and philosophy being so directly inter-communicable is no coincidence.

>inb4 "anti-academic", "Luddite", "ignorant"

How about you take your strings and sound out your urethras, mathcucks

>>15301233
We're actually so close to 'The shots caused more harm than good.'

>>15301315
I kind of like that but mainly it sucks.

>>15301081
At least TempleOS actually works.

>>15301345
You’re right about the field axioms. There’s no such thing as real numbers.

>>15301375
>real numbers.