/sci/ - Science & Math

>http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073
>On The Riemann Zeta Function

Authors: Jonathan Tooker

We discuss the Riemann zeta function, the topology of its domain, and make an argument against the Riemann hypothesis. While making the argument in the classical formalism, we discuss the material as it relates to the theory of infinite complexity (TOIC). We extend Riemann's own (planar) analytic continuation [math]\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}[/math] into (bulk) hypercomplexity with [math]\mathbb{C}\to\,^\star\mathbb{C}[/math]. We propose a solution to the Banach--Tarski paradox.

>>9110635
Get out of here geometric unity guy

>What are you working on?
I'm learning elementary analysis.

>Reading?
Sequences and Limits

public service announcement that real analysis only helps you think better

the most you need in order to get a job in science is differential equations

actually all you need is numerical simulation

>>9110635
Oh look, it's the delusional schizo again.

Picked up a copy of Gaskill's "Elements of Real Analysis" from a thrift store the other day.
It's pretty sedating.

I WANT A TOPOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF LIMIT.
NOW.

>>9110635
Report this motherfucker.

>>9110888
Theoretical Physicists use more math than Differential Equations such as Lie Groups, Analysis on Manifolds, Topology, Differential Geometry.
Top physicists as Edward Witten even used Algebraic Geometry.
Experimental Physics use more Brainlet Math though.

>>9110678
>>9110891
>>9111055
rundown?

>>9111092
He claims to have solved the Riemann hypothesis but can't be assed to get a degree in mathematics and reach the mathematical community like every non crackpot.
He spams his paper every now and then.

>>9111096
ty anon

>http://vixra.org/pdf/1703.0113v1.pdf
a complete and irrefutable disproof of Cantor's Diagonal Argument

>>9111144
>Conclusion: There are not uncountably many real numbers in the unit interval [...]
M'kay.

>>9111051
[math] \lim_{x \to a} = L \iff \forall V_{\epsilon}(L) \exists V_{\delta}(a) : x \in V_{\delta}(a) \implies f(x) \in V_{\epsilon}(L) [/math]

>>9110510
what are the thoughts here on non-standard analysis using the hyperreals?

>>9111144
>University of applied sciences

This is why I do not take applied dogs seriously.

>>9111267
This is a metric definition of limits and it's incorrect.
[math]x \in V_{\delta}(a)[/math] for [math]x\neq a[/math].
The function is not usually defined at [math]a[/math].

Then you should state also what happens for isolated points.

>>9111144
>German education

>>9111096

So, has he solved Riemann's hypothesis?

>>9111519
I don't know.
What I know is that he's not acting in his best interests.
Had I a controversial proof of Riemann, I would have at least taken a three years degree in mathematics to discuss my proof with my professors.
Guess he doesn't have that much trust in his paper!

>>9111539
>Had I a controversial proof of Riemann, I would have at least taken a three years degree in mathematics to discuss my proof with my professors.
Why would you get a degree just to discuss a proof?

>>9111541
Of recent times, do you know of any famous problems solver who did not have a proper education in mathematics or physics?

To answer more directly, he has zero credibility as a mathematician and should learn to write in a way that does not scream crackpot.

Terence Tao wrote about this in his blog. By becoming a mathematician he would build skills, credibility and communicate with other mathematicians.

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/dont-prematurely-obsess-on-a-single-big-problem-or-big-theory/

Geometric unity should be reported on sight.
Please disregard his posts as he usually derails every thread in which posts.

>>9111604
>Of recent times, do you know of any famous problems solver who did not have a proper education in mathematics or physics?
Is Ramanujan recent enough?

> By becoming a mathematician he would build skills, credibility and communicate with other mathematicians.
Someone with a proof of the Riemann hypothesis already has enough skill that doing a three year degree to discuss it with professors would be a waste of time

redpill me on functional analysis

>>9111541
because if you google his paper and read it it's clear he's either horribly misguided or schizophrenic

>>9111613
>Is Ramanujan recent enough?
He was a fellow of the Trinity College to be honest.
Prior to that he was a student at the University of Madras.
>Someone with a proof of the Riemann hypothesis [...]
That's the whole problem you fat dick head.
Not log off of your 4chan account, you're making me lose IQ points.

>>9111618
Functional Analysis (Walter Rudin).
Solve all the problems and rework the theorems to make them intuitive.

>>9111690
How much real analysis should I have going in?

>>9110885
https://notendur.hi.is/vae11/%C3%9Eekking/principles_of_mathematical_analysis_walter_rudin.pdf
This is a really good book for beginners, hope it helps, you only need to know
basic set theory:
https://www.math.uh.edu/~dlabate/settheory_Ashlock.pdf
logic:
http://www.jhtm.nl/tudelft/tw3520/Introduction_to_Mathematical_Logic.pdf
and basic algebra, have fun.

>>9111699
Not much.
The material contained in
>Principles of Mathematical Analysis (Walter Rudin)
is more than enough.
But you don't need to use that book, I didn't.
There are a lot of good, friendly and rigorous Analysis books.
Maybe
>Mathematical Analysis (Tom M. Apostol)
?
You should do some research.
The best book is a rigorous but simple one you understand.

Topology is paramount as it makes everything easier.
Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Munkres will make you breeze through FA of Rudin.
Remember work through the exercises of any book you're using.

>>9111713
Wait, maybe it's
>Calculus I (Tom M. Apostol)
the standard introductory reference.
I have no idea.
You can find both on libgen.

>>9111713
I'll definitely take topology beforehand. Thanks.

Are you familiar with Analysis Now by Pederson? Good/bad?

>>9111687
>He was a fellow of the Trinity College to be honest.
Late in his career

>Prior to that he was a student at the University of Madras.
no degree, so your point is still irrelevant

>That's the whole problem you fat dick head.
No, the problem is why someone would get a three year degree when they can already solve the Riemann hypothesis.

>>9111721
>Are you familiar with Analysis Now by Pederson? Good/bad?
That is Functional Analysis.
It seems a very cool textbook skimming throught it, with lots of exercises.
If you can follow it, you're good.

>>9111723
>when they can already solve the Riemann hypothesis

>>9111744
Did you mean to add something in response to my text you quoted?

>>9111757
Shoo shoo.

>>9111765
?

>>9110635
>>9110678
>>9110891
>>9110891
>>9111055
>>9111092
>>9111096
>>9111102
>>9111519
>>9111539
>>9111541
>>9111604
>>9111608
>>9111613
>>9111671
>>9111687
>>9111723
>>9111744
>>9111757
>>9111765
>>9111766

Please MODS can we delete these posts from an otherwise interesting discussion?
Fuck you schizo motherfucker.

>>9111769
Are you sure you meant to quote my on-topic replies?

>>9111773
none of those posts were on topic, faggot

>>9111870
>none of those posts were on topic
Wrong.

>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>9111706
lol the first book has a spelling error in the preface

>>9110510
I'm right now working on a probability research paper involving discrete Fourier transforms and it is a pain in the ass.

>mfw nothing is working out