Riemann hypothesis disproven?

[Anonymous No.10099400]

How are you not all over this /sci/? It appears legit, I read it myself.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0557v2.pdf

[Anonymous No.10099402]

BEST CLIPS :


44ru.ru/clyLTk

[Anonymous No.10099403]

You are not fooling anyone, schizo.

[Anonymous No.10099408]

>>10099402
> .ru
figures

[Anonymous No.10099423]

>>10099400
>4chan mathematician disproves the riemann hypothesis
lol

[Anonymous No.10099444]

My calculator says that [math]\widehat{\infty}-b[/math] is an even natural number. The [math]z_0[/math] is a trivial zero.

[El Arcón No.10099448]

God bless you. Good things will happen to you for making this thread.

[El Arcón No.10099469]

>>10099444
Trivial zeros, by definition, have imaginary parts equal to zero.

[Isaac Leibnez No.10099487]

>>10099400
No, it's flawed. It tries to prove/disprove it using approximations that don't work that way. Equation 3 should say approximately equal to, and so on. Equation 8 he doesn't define n, and picks a y that doesn't even meet his own criteria ( I know he thinks it does, specifically because he can pick that n to be anything, but he doesn't explain that, and it still doesn't).
Finally, he doesn't actually offer a contradiction, he's just claiming he can prove contradictions exist. If he could, he could pull a specific contradiction and plug it in to show everyone.

Most people that study it feel The Riemann Equation Hypothesis is likely true. I have my own version showing it's true, and have shown and discussed it with /sci before. I'm not posting it again at this point, I need to re-write it anyways.

P.S. This guy >>10099423 is either insecure, lower intelligence, and jealous in their own life, or a shill. If they actually knew who posted here they wouldn't be so quick to belittle people.

[Anonymous No.10099548]

>>10099400
Holy shit you're still spamming this garbage ?

[Anonymous No.10099590]

>>10099548
What's your problem blockhead? Oh I know, you just sit on 4chan all day sifting through threads, ready to wow us all with your amazing one liners. Herp,derp, muh garbage. Yah thanks Oscar, real brilliant.

Just because it's not right doesn't make it garbage, it's not a bad try. Let's see your attempted proof.....I'll be waiting, I'm sure.

Or maybe you just want to chit chat with me about your trolling, you need a friend big boy?

[Issac Leibnez No.10099598]

>>10099400
Another tidbit for the OP, or the person who wrote the paper if they are here. If there are direct contradictions, from what I've studied, they most likely would not come from b-values in the neighborhood of infinity, but from a-values VERY close to 1/2, such as a=1/2 ± .000000000000000015647, like some number with at least 14 decimal places.

[Anonymous No.10099600]

>>10099590
>Just because it's not right doesn't make it garbage, it's not a bad try.
It doesn't make it not garbage either. And this particular attempt most definitely IS a bad try, because half the stuff in that document simply doesn't mean anything in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10099612]

>>10099600
Oscar is that you? Hey Buddy, feeling lonely hunh?

It's not garbage. The level of understanding to even make an attempt like that makes it not garbage. Less than 1/1000 people could even attempt to see if it makes sense. It's caliber alone makes it not garbage. Most of it does mean something, maybe you just don't understand it.

Unless you post a proof of your own, you have no place calling it garbage. Or hell, post any original proof you've developed. You must be getting ready to post your proof any second now. I just can't wait, please hurry.

[Anonymous No.10099613]

>>10099400
>vixra
dropped

[Anonymous No.10099650]

>>10099487
>If they actually knew who posted here they wouldn't be so quick to belittle people.
I'm not belittling people, just laughing at faggot who keeps reposting the same flawed proof verbatim for years.
He saw an anon got recognized for that superpermutation proof sketch and got inspired to "publish" (spam) his shit some more.
Also, no one gives a fuck who you are; if you can't handle that, go back to plebbit or twitter or wherever you came from.

>>10099612
A piece of shit gains value if you make it really complicated? Interesting. Anyways, why are you telling US about it? It's arXiv you need to convince.

[El Arcón No.10099745]

>>10099487
>Equation 3 should say approximately equal to, and so on
No it shouldn't you fucking retard. If it said that, not only would it be wrong, but the paper wouldn't contain a disproof of RH. How fucking retarded are you?

>doesn't define n
retard!

[Anonymous No.10099746]

>>10099612
>Oscar is that you?
I have no idea who or what Oscar is, so I don't think so.

>The level of understanding to even make an attempt like that makes it not garbage. Less than 1/1000 people could even attempt to see if it makes sense.
That is not true at all. I could write a paper full of word salad and call it an attempt, and that doesn't take any understanding at all. Less than 1/1000 people would be able to check whether my word salad makes sense, but it is nonetheless still garbage.

>Most of it does mean something, maybe you just don't understand it.
I'm afraid I don't believe you are able to distinguish between apparent math that does and does not mean anything.

>Unless you post a proof of your own, you have no place calling it garbage.
I don't have a proof any more than you do, or I would be rather more famous than I am. That doesn't mean I cannot distinguish between proofs and nonproofs, or tell how close to actual understanding a given attempt comes.

[El Arcón No.10099763]

>>10099746
>who or what Oscar is

[Anonymous No.10099861]

To all the anons who think I am shilling. I am a random anon that found the paper and just decided to post it. It is a page long and no step of it doesn't make sense so? Where is the mistake anons?

[Anonymous No.10099884]

>>10099861
then you're obviously an utter newfag because the guy who wrote the paper, El Arcon in this thread (aka The Lord) is a frequent /sci/ poster and everybody knows he is wacky. especially since today he was posting nazi shit and declaring how he will kill the families of other /sci/ posters

[El Arcón No.10099910]

>>10099884
I am the Sovereign Lord God, the God of Abraham, and I will crush the heads of my enemies and take away their share in the tree of life. That means to kill their children. Read the book.

Ask you friends if my Masonic rank is 47. Ask them if it's true that only the Sovereign Lord God holds that rank. Don't take my word for, ask your friends.

[Anonymous No.10099913]

>>10099861
In believing a proof is indecipherable. Audience adoption rate is all El Arcón looks for. I approve of his using 4chan to crowd-improve his efforts.

Simpler proof = wider message

[Anonymous No.10099917]

>>10099910
Softer light falls on the eyes that house softer memory of self still.

[Anonymous No.10099922]

>>10099400
Reported again

[Anonymous No.10099925]

>>10099400
>Riemann hypothesis disproven?
nope

[Anonymous No.10099943]

>>10099612
And fewer than 1/1000 people can identify what's wrong with the 1=2 period, but clearly it is garbage except for being the go to example of ways to have an invalid proof

[Anonymous No.10099944]

>>10099910
>>10099917
i think that was somebody parking as jon; image name is wrong and writing style is wrong

[Anonymous No.10099948]

>>10099944
*larping not parking

[Anonymous No.10099950]

>>10099944
I only wish for mathematics to find a way to gift peace. Through who and how I will never question.

[Anonymous No.10100048]

>>10099745
>it would be wrong because it wouldnt accomplish what i claim it does
Wew

Seek help, Jon

[Anonymous No.10100054]

>>10099884
Yeah I am new to sci. Can you explain what you're talking about. Who is this El Arcon? What has he got to do with Jonathan W. Tooker?

[El Arcón No.10100058]

>>10099944
No, man. I am him.

[El Arcón No.10100063]

>>10100048
When I do get help, they're going to help me round up everyone who made a post I didn't like, and I don't like your "seek help" meme at all, and you're going to like the example I make of you. If you want me to have help, why don't you help me?

[Anonymous No.10100069]

>>10100063
Why would they help one whose ultimate narrative excludes based on restrictive criteria?

[El Arcón No.10100075]

>>10100069
Why would you ask such an ambiguous question?

[Anonymous No.10100080]

>>10100075
I inspect inclusive narrative claims. If an ultimate and divine story precludes my existence then why bother letting me be born? Makes more sense to spend more time in the void/heaven/hell.

[Anonymous No.10100081]

Somebody explain what's going on please?

[Anonymous No.10100086]

i can't believe i lived my whole fucking life thinking the riemann hypothesis was true just to be proven wrong...

[El Arcón No.10100112]

>>10100080
Since you exist, apparently, your existence is not precluded. Your existence is the opposite of precluded. Idiot.

[Anonymous No.10100137]

>>10099469
Where does it say that [math]y_0[/math] is not zero?

[Anonymous No.10100148]

>>10100137
it's not explicitly stated but he picks a specific y_0 beneath equation 8, you could figure it out from there
not that it's really a relevant nitpick anyway

[Anonymous No.10100151]

>>10099448
you need to sockpuppet better than this, john

[Anonymous No.10100246]

>>10100112
If it is your divine right to kill me what sign are you waiting for?

[El Arcón No.10100337]

>>10100137
pic

>>10100148
it seems pretty explicit to me, unless you mean that I didn't also write
y_0 != 0

in which case I totally agree

>>10100151
My name is Jon, not John

>>10100246
I'm waiting to get acquainted with the people I can send to kill you without having to bother myself with dealing with you.

[Anonymous No.10100372]

>>10100337
Can you prove you are the real jon?

[Anonymous No.10100442]

>>10100337
If the indifference is divine then why waste the time labelling 'other' and searching for my story to end?

[Anonymous No.10100450]

>>10099400
so, does this change your answer /sci/?

[Anonymous No.10100468]

>>10100450
There is no death process of sufficient length that could maintain killing without cost. Infinite either way presumes a pre-ordered or predicted set.

[El Arcón No.10100870]

>>10100442
Why ask ambiguous questions?

[Anonymous No.10100898]

>>10100870
Either I am I or other.

[Anonymous No.10100928]

>>10100450
Actually everyone knows 1+1+1+...= -1/2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_1_%2B_1_%2B_1_%2B_%E2%8B%AF

[Anonymous No.10100932]

>>10099400
>vixra

[El Arcón No.10100947]

>>10100932

[Anonymous No.10100954]

My problem is with your very first definitions.

Since a neighborhood is just a subset, there's nothing preventing a number to be both in the neighborhood of 0 and also in the neighborhood of infinity. Therefore, your claim about the subsets being equal is not necessarily true.

Until you put meaningful constraints on the neighborhood (i.e. an open or closed interval), you cant claim without proof that your following implications are true.

Of course, when you do define intervals in this way, you lose the rest of your properties so that the proof falls apart.

[El Arcón No.10100975]

>>10100954
>there's nothing preventing a number to be both in the neighborhood of 0 and also in the neighborhood of infinity
Your comment is completely stupid. Consider a number in the neighborhood of infinity, as defined: infinity minus some positive finite number. If there was some number X in the neighborhood of the origin such that
infinity - b = X

then we could obtain via the additive inverse of numbers in the neighborhood of the origin
X + b = infinity

which is a totally stupid statement that infinity is the sum of two finite numbers. Therefore, there is no number in the neighborhood of infinity which is equal to a number in the neighborhood of the origin.

Do you even think before you write? If you're going to troll, why not troll the retarded party? You stupid detractors are rapidly approaching the point where you will have to resort to claims like, "You didn't define the letters of the alphabet you use to write your sentences."

[Anonymous No.10101029]

>>10100975
I'm not trolling. You define the neighborhood of infinity differently than what is in your reply.

In the paper, it is claimed that infinity is in the reals. Therefore, there exists a b in the reals such that x = +-(infinity - b) = 0

Therefore, 0 is in the neighborhood of infinity by your own retarded claims.

If you don't use rigor, no one will take you seriously.

[El Arcón No.10101036]

>>10101029
>it is claimed that infinity is in the reals
No it isn't you fucking retard. Tell me which line and paragraph in which you see that ridiculous statement "infinity is in the reals."

The definition from my comment is the same one from eq (2).

[Anonymous No.10101048]

>>10101036
>ctrl f The Lord
>no trip

Stop pretending to be Jon.

[Anonymous No.10101105]

>>10099400

> in he neighborhood of infinity

Lol

[Anonymous No.10101124]

>>10101105

> We define that neighborhood

No definition found.

Take your meds, OP, for the love of God.

[Anonymous No.10101163]

>>10100337
Wew. For a moment there I thought this was /x/ given how obviously mentally ill this anon is.

[Anonymous No.10101313]

>>10100148
>he picks a specific y_0 beneath equation 8
Please look again. At 8 he already has y_0 fixed. Then he chooses p' and n. When y_0 is 0, you can just pick n=0 and let p' be any prime.

[Anonymous No.10101331]

>>10101313
Infinite primes, infinite homonyms

[Anonymous No.10101622]

>>10099400
>vixra

[Anonymous No.10101631]

>>10100337
Okay john

[Anonymous No.10101715]

>>10101036
(2) and the sentence directly after that.

Infinity must be in the reals, otherwise you couldn't define operations on it with other reals. In fact you should prove that an equivalence class exists, namely the mapping of all reals to a set of infinities each of different size. Also, if infinity isnt in the reals then by (2) you lose closure in the reals and x is no longer in R.

[Anonymous No.10101914]

The main problem with this entire theory every time i see it posted, is that OP can't describe his infinity as a proper mathematical object and deduce his claims from the definition. You can't just say that you have an object that has all the properties of another object except one property, and then use that if you don't have some kind of explicit representation of that concept in basic mathematics.
Positive infinity can be easily described as a follows. For every integer N there exists a B such that N < B. using this very crude definition you can get the analytic properties of most of infinities ideas, such as additive absorption. say you have B-N2 where N2 is some integer, you can preform a basic operation on the equation and get the following N+N2 < B and since N2 is an integer is can be simplified as anotheri nteger total so you're back to N < B but you can also try the same but in inverse so you have N < B+N2, N-N2 < B N-N2 is an integer so N < B therefore you can conclude that B-2N=B+2N for any integer in existence so you have additive absorption. The problem with OPs post is his schizo self can't come up with a proper basic definition that gives rise to the properties of his hat infinity, and I doubt that he could. But if there is a way to achive all the analytical properties of infinity without additive absorption using a proper definition grounded in the numbers that the Riemann hypothesis is relevant to, than i doubt it would even constitute a non trivial zero as his hat infinity would most likely not be part of the complex numbers. OP i recommend thinking about what actually defines what you work with rather than just assuming it can exist. for example imaginary numbers are easily defined using the real numbers by the equation (-1)^(1/2) but your hat infinity has no such definition.

[Anonymous No.10102196]

>>10101914
>and then use that if you don't have some kind of explicit representation of that concept in basic mathematics.
but dont you get it john isn't a mathematician he's a physicist so it's not fair to judge him by the same standards as proper mathematicians

[El Arcón No.10102393]

>>10101124
>No definition found.
Next time you read the paper, have a look at equation (2). It defines the elements of that neighborhood.

>>10101715
>(2) and the sentence directly after that.
Look again (pic), it doesn't say infinity is real. It says b != 0 which means infinity by itself is not allowed in the group "real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity."
>Infinity must be in the reals, otherwise you couldn't define operations on it with other reals
This is also stupid. In non-standard analysis without the hatted infinity we already have the operations
inf * x = inf
inf + x = inf

don't be retarded. If we can define the operation
inf + x = inf

then we can most certainly define a different operation
inf + x != inf

>Infinity must be in the reals, otherwise you couldn't define operations on it with other reals
idiot
>you should prove that an equivalence class exists
>namely the mapping of all reals to a set of infinities each of different size
"You should make it more complicated than it needs to be and use words that will average people won't understand so that we can more easily sell them the lie that you are wrong"

>Also, if infinity isnt in the reals then by (2) you lose closure in the reals and x is no longer in R.
Infinity is not in the reals but every other number on the extended real number line is real. Therefore, (inf -b) is a real number.

>>10102196
What I have said is that my physics papers shouldn't be held to the standard of rigor which is usually reserved for math papers. Go ahead and judge my math papers, like this one, according to that standard. Unlike most other people, I am not unwilling to leave my area of greatest expertise.

Pic related, hopefully Mochizuki-san will hook me up.

[Anonymous No.10102413]

>>10102393
That's fine. Then you should say what you mean exactly. To most of us, it just looks like you fail to understand analysis.

[Anonymous No.10102418]

>>10102393
Infinity is infinitely imprintable from other functions. It requires a pinching functor to occur BEFORE any imprinting happens.

Infinity Tree root, trunk, branch.

[Anonymous No.10102422]

>>10102413
Analysis is shared and distributable.

[Anonymous No.10102442]

This has to be a joke.

There is no way anyone this dumb could actually exist in real life.

[Anonymous No.10102468]

>>10102442
What narrative do you build with your observations?

[El Arcón No.10102470]

>>10102413
>That's fine.
What is fine?

And I tell you... if my mastery of the nuance/jargon of trained mathematicians (irrelevant in this context) makes it looks like I don't even have the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in math then I can tell you a very good reason why it looks that way. However, even while criticisms of my mathematical grammar are not totally unfounded, the "garbled statement" I pieced together does clearly prove the negation of the Riemann hypothesis... even if there is a comma splice or I forgot to capitalize a wrod

[Anonymous No.10102495]

>>10102470
Is your passion Trump derived?

[El Arcón No.10102520]

>>10102495
If Trump's son Barron is a medical abomination grown from my improperly harvested semen then my only passion for Trump is vengeance. And no friend of Israel is a friend of mine.

[Anonymous No.10102530]

>>10102470
I'm not saying you're wrong. I said I took issue with the formulation. You explained it. Now I understand.

I like the way you wrote your definitions in the last pic. It is much clearer to me what you're trying to accomplish.

I still think you're off a little on your claims though. If the neighborhood of infinity is an arbitrarily large radius, then it can be arbitrarily chosen to be 0.

Yet, you fix the radius later on in the proof, which seems to me and others to be a problem.

[El Arcón No.10102552]

>>10102530
>you fix the radius later on in the proof,
Where do I do this?

>what you're trying to accomplish.
maybe you should focus on the plain fact that zeta of z_0 is equal to zero instead of some subjective concept of "trying" to do something.

[Anonymous No.10102561]

how long before this schizo shoots up a school and /sci/ is on MSM being portrayed as an autistic incel community?

[El Arcón No.10102571]

>>10102561
FYI, shooting is what I consider a merciful death and my enemies shouldn't expect that from me. I encourage to give themselves that gift but if they ignore my advice they will certainly not get it from me.

[Anonymous No.10102591]

>>10102393
This is a much better document than the piece posted in OP. This one is at least coherent and specific enough that we can point out actual mistakes, instead of being drowned in meaningless verbiage.

[El Arcón No.10102594]

>>10102591
>point out actual mistakes
please do

[Anonymous No.10102610]

>vixra

[Anonymous No.10102618]

>>10102561
>implying we're not

[Anonymous No.10102623]

>>10099400
It has been pointed out to you many times that the Euler product formula does not work for Re(z) <= 1. I don't know why you keep insisting on using it.
The product clearly vanishes for anything negative. If this were actually equal to zeta in that domain the RH would have been disproved 200 years ago once somebody noticed you could just plug in any negative number you wanted.

[Anonymous No.10102637]

>>10102594
okay, how about i'll give a shot at it
from vixra:1809.0234:
1.3.5 says [math]\widehat{\infty}-\widehat{\infty}[/math] is undefined

def 1.3.10 says that for [math]\left(\pm \widehat{\infty} +a\right) \mp \widehat{\infty} = a [/math]

okay, take a = 0
[math]\left(\pm \widehat{\infty} +0\right) \mp \widehat{\infty} = 0 [/math]
but [math]\left(\pm \widehat{\infty} +0\right) \mp \widehat{\infty} = \widehat{\infty}-\widehat{\infty} = \mathrm{undefined}[/math]
so 0 = undefined?

[Anonymous No.10102654]

>>10102393
It seems going from equation 1.9 to 1.11 you are simplifying [math] \frac{p^{\hat{\inf}}} {p^b} = \hat{\inf} [\math] is this true? Can you quickly specify how this happens? I'll ask my follow up question afterwards if you answer the same as I would to this first question.

[El Arcón No.10102658]

>>10102637
>take a = 0
by the definition of R-hat (Def 1.3.1), a = 0 is not allowed.

>>10102623
>Euler product formula does not work...
The sum is equal to the product. Look at this pic. Do you dispute that equality at the top?

[El Arcón No.10102662]

>>10102654
> is this true?
yes. First I use
p^inf = inf

and then I use the multiplicative absorptive property of inf to absorb p^(-b)

[Anonymous No.10102667]

>>10102658
fine, then what about [math]\left(\widehat{\infty}+1\right)+\left(-\widehat{\infty}-1 \right)[/math]
is that 0 or undefined?
1.13.11 says it's 0, but elementary properties of addition say it's [math]\widehat{\infty}-\widehat{\infty}[/math] which is undefined according to 1.3.5

[Anonymous No.10102680]

>>10102662
So you say you have multiplicative absorption, but not additive absorption. This is in contradiction as you have:
p^inf / p^b = inf / p^b which is inf/finite, implying p^inf / p^b = inf
We can say p^inf / p^b = p^(inf-b) = p^(inf) = inf.

How do you maintain multiplicative absorption without additive absorption?

We can also go to a more concrete mentality of multiplication represented by multiple summations, but wanted to stay within your work specifically.

[Anonymous No.10102694]

>>10102658
I do dispute it for numbers with Re(z) <= 1, because it's not true.

Even in the rough sketch of a proof you posted you can see clearly why the proof fails if Re(s) <= 1; the "repeating infinitely for..." step is critically dependent on the assumption that when we take a limit of this process, the limit of the tail of the series is zero. This is why you get a 1 on the right hand side, and not a 1+(something).
But this is clearly false if s is negative.

[Anonymous No.10102718]

Wow. Some people in this thread are so fucking stupid. I have to wonder what kind of shit-tier schools you got into to be such shitty "mathematicians."

[Anonymous No.10102721]

>>10102718
georgia tech :^)

[Anonymous No.10102731]

>>10102718
>Wow. Some people in this thread are so fucking stupid. I have to wonder what kind of shit-tier schools you got into to be such shitty "mathematicians."

[Anonymous No.10102739]

>>10099400
> vixra
> looks legit

[Anonymous No.10102808]

i wonder if jon is having an existential schizo crisis right now?

he never takes this long to defend his "papers"

jon, i'm not trying to troll you, i think you're a cool guy with an admirable passion for physics and math. all of us can be wrong. if you publish stuff that other people are able to prove wrong, that's fine, it happens to all of us. if we happened to prove you wrong, there's no shame in that, it was a constructive exercise in the scientific method. we're cool with you even if you admit flaws in your earlier publications

[Anonymous No.10102821]

>>10102594
Apologies, I had to run shortly after writing that post.

There are some relatively minor issues early on, but the essential point where this document goes off the rails is at definitions 1.4 and 1.5.

>Real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity shall be written as [math]x = \pm(\hat\infty - b)[/math]
You can write it like that, if you like. But if you want to *actually manipulate* the term [math]\hat\infty - b[/math] as if it consists of separately meaningful terms [math]\hat\infty[/math] and [math]b[/math], as you do in theorems 1.6 and 1.7, you need to actually define [math]b[/math] and [math]\hat\infty[/math] independently.

How, exactly? If R = 5 and x = 6, how do you define b? What specific concrete value do you envision for b in [math]6 = \hat\infty - b[/math]?

What is more:
>where [math]\hat\infty[/math] inherits all canonically non-standard properties of [math]\infty[/math] except for additive absorption
This, too, needs an actual definition. How exactly do you define the behavior of [math]\hat\infty[/math] when subject to arithmatic? Can you prove that it does in fact have the properties you mention? You can't just define a term as having certain properties and then run with it -- or you could say "define X as the number that is both equal to 5 and 6. Then, by definition, 5 = X = 6, so 5 = 6. QED".

You can see the immediate consequences of this maldefinition in Theorem 1.6:
>The quotient of a number in the neighborhood of the origin divided by a number in the neighborhood of infinity is identically zero.
So if R = 5, it follows that 3/6 = 0?

[Anonymous No.10102846]

>>10102393
>Next time you read the paper, have a look at equation (2)

First you are referring to another document not the one posted.

Second WTF does "an arbitrarily large radius R" mean, if anything?

[Anonymous No.10102852]

>>10102846
To clarify

In the image posted you have a meaningless definition. In the OP, equation (2) is a consequence of the definition, which was given previously in the form of a vague hand waving statement.

Equation (2) is also undefined in that you have not defined addition by infinity. This could and had been defined in numerous different ways but you do not say what definition you are using.

I stand by my assertion that you should start taking your meds again.

[Anonymous No.10102889]

>>10099400
The easiest-to-spot problem with the purported proof is that in the real and complex numbers (or any other field) [math]\frac{x}{y}=0[/math] requires [math]x=0[/math], it doesn't suffice to be in a neighborhood of 0.
So no matter how rigorous or not the construction of [math]\widehat{\mathbb{R}}[/math] can be made, equation (3) means that it doesn't contain any real or even complex numbers and thus [math]z_0[/math] bears no immediate relevance to the Riemann hypothesis in standard form.

[Anonymous No.10102903]

jon is back on /sci/ as of right now.

he should be posting replies within the next half-hour if i understand his behaviors correctly

[Anonymous No.10102909]

>>10102903
What's his end game?
Jon: If your proof is valid, why haven't you published it in a reputable journal?

[Anonymous No.10102912]

>>10102571
who are your enemies

[Anonymous No.10102915]

>>10102909
i think Jon wants to be the next hawking or feynman or einstein...

look at his early publications on vixra. he addresses, in almost each article, within each of them, the problems of dark energy, ads/cft, dark matter, etc. he is aiming for the stars.

[El Arcón No.10102947]

>>10102667
>1.13.11 says it's 0
yep. the one is the additive inverse of the other
> elementary properties of addition say
paper defines some "advanced properties"

>>10102694
equality holds in all cases. If you disagree, say which step of the derivation of the equality that you disagree with. One thing is directly equal to the other via middle school level algebraic manipulations, albeit very clever ones.
>you can see clearly why the proof fails if Re(s) <= 1
I can't see that. In fact, it looks to me like proof succeeds in exactly that case.

I can plug my z_0 number into the zeta function that looks like the Firichlet function, to Euler's exact manipulation with z_0 instead of arbitrary z, and it comes out to exactly zero. You are trying to make it more complicated than it really is.

>>10102808
>even if you admit flaws in your earlier publications
Everyone makes mistakes but only a fool fails to distinguish errors from errata.

>>10102821
>you need to actually define [math]b[/math] and [math]\hat\infty[/math] independently.
I did.

>how do you define b?
it is a positive real number in the neighborhood of the origin, just like it is independently defined in the paper.

> If R = 5 and x = 6, how do you define b?
>What specific concrete value do you envision for b in [math]6 = \hat\infty - b[/math]?
R=5 is not an arbitrarily large number. It is a specific small number. If you choose the radius like that so that "6" is no longer a real number in the neighborhood of the origin then there is a part of the real line which is uncharted. However, if you choose R to be "arbitrarily large", which you have taken to mean simply "arbitrary" then 6 is a number in the neighborhood of the origin and every number you could think of is one neighborhood or the other.

>This, too, needs an actual definition
That phrase you quoted is an actual definition.

>cant just define a term as having certain properties and then run with it
Its already defined in mom-standard analysis

[Anonymous No.10102954]

>>10102947
Jon, I can and will edit your posts to make you look dumber. I did it on facebook, and I can do it here, too. I will shut this proof down.

[Anonymous No.10102962]

>>10102947
>yep. the one is the additive inverse of the other
>paper defines some "advanced properties"
so your argument is that the operation of addition needs to be redefined? because in your system, addition isn't associative? your addition is completely new and unrelated to normal addition? then i suggest a new notation for it

[Anonymous No.10102967]

quality shitposting from the friendly neighborhood schizophrenic, as always.

Doing (((god's))) work.

[Anonymous No.10102968]

>>10102947
The post you are replying to very explicitly states exactly which step is false and why. You are playing dumb on purpose because you don't have any arguments other than semantic games with vague infinite quantities.

Hell man, on the exact same page you're trying to cite there is another proof which explicitly mentions the fact that you need Re(s) > 1. But of course you ignored this one.

[El Arcón No.10102972]

>>10102821
>So if R = 5, it follows that 3/6 = 0?
You are not properly differentiating between the condition "arbitrary" and the completely separate condition "arbitrarily large"

>>10102846
>Second WTF does "an arbitrarily large radius R" mean, if anything?
If you can convince me that you know what each of those words means, and also show me at least one attempt to string them together into one meaningful phrase (in your own words), then I will point out any error in your attempt. Otherwise, I refer you to any English dictionary.

>>10102852
>equation (2) is a consequence of the definition
no, it is the definition
>a vague hand waving statement.
that was the segue into the definition

>Equation (2) is also undefined in that you have not defined addition by infinity
I have not done an additive operation with infinity so I don't need to define it. I have simply put it in additive composition with "b" via the familiar "minus" sign. Putting something in composition and doing the composition operation are two totally separate things.

>>10102852
>I stand by my assertion
and I stand by mine that when I take my vengeance on, you will regret mocking me with Helene's memes

>>10102889
>the real and complex numbers (or any other field)
You are stupidly confusing numbers with number fields. number in the neighborhood of the origin might all satisfy the definition of a field but it seems as if numbers in the neighborhood of infinity, which are self-evidently numbers, do not satisfy the field properties. Notice that the Millennium Prize says, "Prove if there's a number off the real axis and off the critical line at whcih zeta is zero." It does not say "Prove if there's am element of a number field off the real axis and off the critical line at which zeta is zero." Numbers and number fields are different. Probably a lot of people forgetting this salient detail had to do with them never considering the neighborhood of infinity.

[Anonymous No.10102973]

>>10102968
or even better, consider this, the last line of _your exact proof_ that you chopped off because it is exactly what I'm telling you

[Anonymous No.10102976]

>>10102972
tooker confirmed as unstable.

anyone in the atlanta area should contact the mental health authorities. this dude is threatening violence, and in light of magabomber and gabantisemite we should take this seriously

[Anonymous No.10102980]

>>10102947
>I did.
No, you did not. You stated some properties you want them to have, but that is not the same as providing a definition.

>it is a positive real number in the neighborhood of the origin, just like it is independently defined in the paper.
That is a property you want it to have. But how do you define it? Which *specific* positive real number in the neighborhood of the origin is it, for this scenario in which I have specified all other free variables?

>R=5 is not an arbitrarily large number. It is a specific small number.
That is not what "arbitrarily large" means in other mathematical contexts, but okay. What *is* an arbitrarily large number, then, if 5 is not one of them? Can you define that notion? Can you give me a specific example?

>If you choose the radius like that so that "6" is no longer a real number in the neighborhood of the origin then there is a part of the real line which is uncharted.
Uncharted? Your document does not talk about charting anything. What is this new concept you are introducing?

>That phrase you quoted is an actual definition.
No, it is not. It's a set of properties that may or may not be consistent and that may or may not be satisfied by just a single entity.

>Its already defined in mom-standard analysis
No, it is not.

[El Arcón No.10102987]

>>10102889
>it doesn't contain any real or even complex numbers
You are stupidly failing to distinguish between numbers and number fields. A good way to remember that they are different is notice that one has the unique name "numbers" and the other has the unique name "number fields"

>>10102909
>If your proof is valid, why haven't you published it in a reputable journal?
I just wrote it down four weeks ago. It got rejected by arXiv, rejected by the Bulletin of the AMS, rejected by the Bulletin of London Math Society (resubmitted with edits in consideration), rejected by American mathematical monthly, under consideration at Comptes Rendus, and I just submitted the more formal paper to Mochizuki's PRIMS yesterday.

>>10102912
>who are your enemies
I'm going to have to launch a formal inquisition to identify them specifically but my preliminary findings suggest that is a bunch of Jews, feds, faggots, and Scientologists, not to mention their other minions that comprise the Synagogue of Satan.

>>10102915
>i think Jon wants to be the next
nope
> he is aiming for the stars.
yep. Pic related, this is a big difference between my own religion and Christianity: Jews are waiting for me show up for the first time and Christians think it's the second time. The Christians are wrong about that in a sense, but they may be right about it regarding an alternate timeline wherein I die before I accomplish the mission of the messiah.

This is what I'm trying to do with my life: accomplish the mission of the Messiah. Jews believe that any man who can accomplish this mission without dying first is the Messiah, and I believe that too.

[El Arcón No.10103020]

>>10102954
I think the person who did that on FB calls me Jonathan and if you can do it then it likely that I cannot stop you.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q18hXaE-FpU
Video shows typos being inserted into my posts in real time on FB. This was right before the Benghazi attack and this video is "teh anti-muslim video"

>>10102962
>addition isn't associative?
I defined the rules. Tell me which definition you don't understand.

>>10102968
>explicitly states exactly which step is false and why
I don't see it. Since I have explicit calculated the value of the series, its convergence properties are irrelevant. Convergence is what we look at when we can't compute explicit values. The convergence is totally irrelevant because it is exactly calculable, It is you who are playing dumb.

>>10102973
>you chopped off because it is exactly what I'm telling you
A series which is identically equal to zero does converge absolutely. Don't be retarded.

>>10102980
>providing a definition.
You are the idiot. Pic has both definitions.

>Can you define that notion?
Call a number R "arbitrarily large" if for any number in the neighborhood of the origin X we have R>X

[Anonymous No.10103039]

>>10103020
>You are the idiot. Pic has both definitions.
Like I already told you, that is not a definition.

>Call a number R "arbitrarily large" if for any number in the neighborhood of the origin X we have R>X
That is circular, for the neighborhood of the origin *is* the interval (-R, R), is it not? You can't define the neighborhood of the origin in terms of R, and then R in terms of the neighborhood of the origin. Taking R=5, neighborhood of the origin = (-5, 5) satisfies all you have written so far.

[Anonymous No.10103041]

>>10103020
>Call a number R "arbitrarily large" if for any number in the neighborhood of the origin X we have R>X

You define your neighborhood by R, so you cannot use what lies within your neighborhood to define "arbitrarily large". That, by definition, is circular logic.

[Anonymous No.10103048]

>>10103020
>Since I have explicit calculated the value of the series
No, you have explicitly calculated the value of an infinite product. This product is not equal to the value of zeta for the number you're computing because it's outside of the valid domain.

[El Arcón No.10103059]

>>10103039
>not a definition.

>>10103041
>That, by definition, is circular logic.
How about this:
Call a number R "arbitrarily large" if it is finite and also for any X in \mathbb{Z} we have R>X

[El Arcón No.10103068]

>>10103048
>outside of the valid domain.
nah. just plug z_0 into the Riemann zeta which looks like the Dirichlet series. Then do the manipulation that Euler did. It is equal to zero.
>LOOK HOW STUPID HE IS, HE CALLED AN INFINITE PRODUCT A "SERIES"

[Anonymous No.10103071]

>>10103059
>Call a number R "arbitrarily large" if it is finite and also for any X in \mathbb{Z} we have R>X
Okay, but there are no such R in the real numbers.

[Anonymous No.10103077]

Mathematics is the language of memory shared. We cannot die for the throne widens to accommodate all and their private preferences.

[Anonymous No.10103078]

>>10103059
>Call a number R "arbitrarily large" if it is finite and also for any X in \mathbb{Z} we have R>X
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_property

[Anonymous No.10103085]

>>10103068
>just plug z_0 into the Riemann zeta which looks like the Dirichlet series. Then do the manipulation that Euler did. It is equal to zero.
The manipulation that Euler did assumes that [math]lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{p > k}^{\infty} \frac{1}{p^s} = 0[/math] during the "repeating infinitely" step. But with negative numbers you get infinity from this, not zero.

[El Arcón No.10103092]

>>10103071
>there are no such R in the real numbers.
I think \mathbb{Z} contains real numbers like this. No?

>>10103085
>But with negative numbers you get infinity from this, not zero.
I already showed it is zero. If you do the steps and show it isn't then I'll examine what you claim to show.

[Anonymous No.10103093]

>>10103092
I have specified the exact line of the proof that fails and explained why. You do not misunderstand what I am telling you, you're just trying to evade the issue by making me re-typeset a wikipedia article for no reason.

[Anonymous No.10103094]

>>10103092
>I think \mathbb{Z} contains real numbers like this. No?
No.

[Anonymous No.10103096]

>>10103092
Are you trying to say the integers are bounded?
>>10103094
Is he trying to say the integers are bounded?

[Anonymous No.10103097]

>>10103096
>Is he trying to say the integers are bounded?
I think he is, yes. That's definitely what he's actually saying, though I'm not certain it's what he was trying to say.

[Anonymous No.10103098]

*screams randomly*

[El Arcón No.10103102]

>>10103094
It does. For any X in \mathbb{Z} there is some other X' such that X'>X. I am certain.

>>10103093
>making me re-typeset a wikipedia article for no reason.
Just copy my image and put a box around the step that is wrong.

[El Arcón No.10103105]

>>10103102
...where X' is also in \mathbb{Z}

[Anonymous No.10103106]

>>10103102
>It does. For any X in \mathbb{Z} there is some other X' such that X'>X. I am certain.
Yes, but there is no X in \mathbb{Z} such that X > X' for every other X', which is what you are describing in >>10103059 >>10103092 .

[Anonymous No.10103111]

>>10103102
when you repeat this process infinitely for a number with Re(s) < 0, you do not get a 1 on the right hand side. you get 1+infinity.

[El Arcón No.10103112]

>>10103106
I said "for any" not "for every"

[Anonymous No.10103117]

>>10103112
As in "for some"? Then every R in \mathbb{R} qualifies.

[Anonymous No.10103119]

>>10102987
>I just wrote it down four weeks ago. It got rejected by arXiv, rejected by the Bulletin of the AMS, rejected by the Bulletin of London Math Society (resubmitted with edits in consideration), rejected by American mathematical monthly, under consideration at Comptes Rendus, and I just submitted the more formal paper to Mochizuki's PRIMS yesterday.
Would you please share some of the reviewers' comments, Jon?

[El Arcón No.10103128]

>>10103119

[El Arcón No.10103135]

>>10103119
from BLMS

[El Arcón No.10103138]

>>10103119
PAMS

[Anonymous No.10103139]

>>10103128
I guess that makes sense, I don't read AMM often but they are pretty expository if I remember correctly.
>>10103135
Seems that you've worked through those definitions in this thread.
>>10103138
Weak.

[El Arcón No.10103141]

>>10103119
This is my favorite one

[Anonymous No.10103146]

>>10103098
I like you.

[Anonymous No.10103147]

it's interesting to see different desk reject patterns between editors
you can tell just from the e-mails that people range from reading the whole thing to skimming it to just binning it as soon as they see the title

[Anonymous No.10103150]

Why doesn't /sci/ just allow a thread to reach critical mass so these competitive others can be upstaged? 4chan solves problem X.

[El Arcón No.10103152]

>>10103111
I don't see where you would get "1+inf" and it does not have that caveat in the algebraic steps. You might have a point but if you won't derive your "1+inf" then I have to assume it is because it can't be derived.

I think the issue is that you are using a concept of a limit of infinite repetition in place of an actual infinite repetition.

When you say, "I would definitively prove you wrong but I won't because I would have type as man as ten lines of math," it makes me think you could not produce that math even if you wanted to.

[El Arcón No.10103154]

>>10103139
>Weak.
I agree. The arXiv one though... that is outrageous.

[Anonymous No.10103156]

>>10103152
>I think the issue is that you are using a concept of a limit of infinite repetition in place of an actual infinite repetition.
There is no definition of "infinite repetition" except as a limit.

[El Arcón No.10103160]

>>10103156
>There is no definition of "infinite repetition" except as a limit.
wrong. The number infinity gets added to the reals in extended real analysis for exactly applications like this. You would ask "Repeat how many times?" Then the answer is "Infinity."
Also,
>
When you say, "I would definitively prove you wrong but I won't because I would have type as many as ten lines of math," it makes me think you could not produce that math even if you wanted to.

[El Arcón No.10103163]

until tomorrow...

[Anonymous No.10103171]

You know, these equations that Jonathan W. Tooker wrote down are undeniably truthful. Why are we ignoring them?

[Anonymous No.10103175]

>>10103163
Tomorrow is merely another attempt at that which you did not achieve today. Is communication of truth so hard?

[Anonymous No.10103219]

>>10103112
Every time you try to describe it, I can change "arbitrarily large" to "arbitrarily small" and it still fits your definition or else it is equal to infinity and your "neighborhood" is the entire, unbounded, real line

[Anonymous No.10103340]

Thanks OP, your idea is nearly correct but I had to fill in some rigor and a lemma. The Riemann is now officially proven to be false. Watch the AMS in the upcoming weeks. Also, don't expect to get any credit from me dumb fuck lmao

[Anonymous No.10103420]

>>10103340
LARPer

[Anonymous No.10103519]

>>10099400
You're that dude of the dunes and cosines at infinity right?

[Anonymous No.10103608]

Ahahahaha, what has this thread turned into...

Im OP btw after examining it again btw I see why the paper is false.

[Anonymous No.10103653]

>>10102947
>equality holds in all cases. If you disagree, say which step of the derivation of the equality that you disagree with.
The first line zeta(s) = 1 + 1/2^s + ...
is wrong for Re(s) <= 1, because the sum diverges in this range: the zeta function is defined in this region by analytic continuation, not by the sum formula.

[Anonymous No.10103713]

>>10102393
Let the neighbourhood of zero be (-1.5, 1.5). Then 2 is in the neighbourhood of infinity, and 1 is in the neighbourhood of zero, but x/y is not zero, as you claim here >>10099400.
It's true that if you take the limit of (-a,a) as a -> infinity you will make x/y closer and closer to zero for x near 0 and y near infinity, by in this limit you will have LL reals in the neighbourhood of 0 and none in the neighbourhood of infinity, so if you're defining the neighbourhoods of zero and infinity as this limit, you haven't actually defined these sets: the limit doesn't exist! In other words, x/y doesn't exist because though x can be anything, y can be nothing.

[Anonymous No.10103716]

>>10103608
it's very amusing watching how vehemently he argues his points for a while, but his tactics get irritating eventually.
I honestly am starting to doubt that the dude is even schizo. I think he's just a sociopath.

[Anonymous No.10103734]

>>10103716
nah the way he writes when he's not talking about math, it's textbook schizo

[El Arcón No.10103966]

>>10103340
>Watch the AMS
I wish.

>>10103519
Not thread OP but I am the author of the paper. Yes, I wrote the one about sine and cosine too.
http://www.vixra.org/author/jonathan_w_tooker

>>10103653
>The first line zeta(s) = 1 + 1/2^s + ...
>is wrong for Re(s) <= 1, because the sum diverges in this range
The Riemann zeta function is the Dirichlet series continued from real numbers to complex numbers. Other people may have had a hard time figuring out what it does in the critical strip and to the left but I showed exactly what it does way over to the left.

>>10103713
>Let the neighbourhood of zero be (-1.5, 1.5)
but 1.5 isn't arbitrarily large, it's one specific number.

[Anonymous No.10104051]

>>10101914
To expand on this it is not enough to simply say somthing exists and deduce claims from it and claim that your theory is true, you must prove that that somthing exists without contradiction.
Lets say you have a f(x) such that it is continus and all its derivatives are continous and that f''(x)>0 lim x->inf f(x)=0 and lim x->0+ f(x)=inf and that f(x)<0 on some intervul, and claim this object exists, you can deduce a lot from claiming this exists such that a continuous function with a positive and negative value can have a 0 limit at inf without f'(x)=0 occuring, but this is provably false. So just because we say somthing exists and prove a theory with that somthing doesn't mean that theory is proven, you must prove your object exists first.

So prove that your hat infinity can exist using mathematical notation involving the same numbers the riemann hypothesis is relevant to.

[Anonymous No.10104060]

I already pointed in another thread that this neighborhood thing was unclear; i see im not the only one.
Where it stops being neighborhood of origin? And from inf? Pic related

[Anonymous No.10104098]

>>10104060
Yes. Not a mathematician though, but doesn't a neighborhood include what's around that point? So if you look at neighborhood of 0, it necessarily includes both positive and negative values? I'm not sure if mathematically this is true or just the "layman" speak. If that is true, wouldn't trying to define a neighborhood at infinity admit there is something beyond infinity? Furthermore, Tooker said mathematicians include infinity on the number line (and it is not additively absorptive which I have issues with, but pressing on) is this even true? Wouldn't that imply there should be a known value for inf-1?

[Anonymous No.10104114]

>>10099400
Why do you not send your proof to prof. Norman Wildberger at UNSW. He will surely endorse you straight entry to publication in a major journal. You could make youtube videos together too.

[El Arcón No.10104117]

>>10104060
Well, I see you have used one red bracket to put the origin inside the neigborhood of infinity. Since numbers in the neighborhood of infinity are defined as "infinity minus a finite number" it is hard to see how you could get zero in there. What was your thinking when you drew that? Furthermore, there can be no overlap of the neighborhoods. If there was then we would have
inf - b = b'

from which we could derive a statement
inf = b' + b

which stupidly says that infinity is the sum of two finite numbers.

[El Arcón No.10104150]

>>10104098
>something beyond infinity?
Absolutely, but that "something" isn't real numbers because real numbers are less than infinity and more than minus infinity.

>known value for inf-1?
Yes, you have used the known value in question: "inf-1" Just like a complex number has two parts in its digital value
z = x + iy ,

numbers in the neighborhood of infinity also have two parts in their digital values.

>>10104114
>endorse you straight entry to publication
I don't think that's how journals work.

[Anonymous No.10104203]

>>10104117
What i was just asking is at wich number it stops to be at the neighborhood of 0 or inf.
Can you give an aproximation? Bigger numbers than Graham's number? Or you just split R in 2 and say well, this side is the neighborhood of 0 and the other side the neighborhood of inf?

[Anonymous No.10104205]

>>10104117
not that guy, but let me take another shot at convincing you
again going back to 1809.0234
def 1.2.4:
[eqn]x_n \in \mathbb{R} \ : \ \lim_{n\rightarrow\inf} x_n \ \mathrm{diverges} \ \implies \ x_n \in \widehat{\mathbb{R}} \ : \ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} x_n = \widehat{\infty}[/eqn]
okay, then define:
[math]x_n = \sum_{i=0}^n n[/math]
[math]y_n = 1 + \sum_{i=0}^n n[/math]
just to write it out
[math]x_0 = 0 \ , \ x_1 = 1 \ , \ x_2 = 1+2 \ , \ x_3 = 1+2+3 \ ...[/math]
[math]y_0 = 1 \ , \ y_1 = 1+1 \ , \ y_2 = 1+1+2 \ , \ y_3 = 1+1+2+3 \ ...[/math]

so by your definition, both [math]x_n[/math] and [math]y_n[/math] diverge with n
so therefore by your definition
[math]\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}x_n = \widehat{\infty}[/math]
[math]\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}y_n = \widehat{\infty}[/math]
however
[eqn]y_n = x_n + 1[/eqn] for all [math]n[/math]
therefore [eqn]\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}y_n = 1 + \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}x_n[/eqn]
therefore [eqn]\widehat{\infty} = 1 + \widehat{\infty}[/eqn]
contradiction

[Anonymous No.10104223]

>>10104205
or for people not following tooker’s definition of “infinity-hat is not additively absorptive” i’ve basically proved that infinity must be additively absorptive

[Anonymous No.10104292]

>>10104098
Was looking for a second opinion, not a confirmation from OP

[Anonymous No.10104304]

>>10104223
Yes, Tooker doesn't do math because he isn't even consistent with himself. He does manipulations at best, but not math

[El Arcón No.10104520]

>>10104203
>Or you just split R in 2 and say well, this side is the neighborhood of 0 and the other side the neighborhood of inf?
Since there is a one-to-one correspondence between non-zero positive numbers of the form
b

and numbers in the neighborhood of positive infinity of the form
(inf - b)

this seems like a good idea to me. What are your thoughts in that regard?

[El Arcón No.10104623]

>>10104205
This is a thoughtful criticism, thank you very much. I do not see an error in your derivation of a contradiction. Therefore, I should change Def 1.2.4 as in pic related. I am not saying pic is right, this is just my first attempt at a workaround. Please criticize my workaround. And thank you very much for pointing out this apparent contradiction.

Also, I was think about sending this Sine and Cosine paper to a journal. I was reading Remarks 1.3.14 and I have no idea what I was getting at there. Do this remark make sense to anyone? I think I messed that up too.

[Anonymous No.10104627]

>>10104520
I think this makes no sense. You cant divide by 2 what has no end.
You could make sense of the neighborhood of 0 by actually defining it with a number, but then it wont serve for your purposes.
You cant do the same with infinity.

[Anonymous No.10104648]

You know, these equations that Jonathan W. Tooker wrote down are undeniably truthful. Why are we ignoring them?

[Anonymous No.10104658]

>>10104623
if someone takes as much time as that anon I'm sure they can figure out something just as wrong. and then you will change it again. "NOW it's perfect". but really the whole thing is shit.

[El Arcón No.10104676]

>>10104627
The extended real line does have an end. That is the difference between the real line and the extended real line. If I divide it in two and and then disallow the endpoint, everything left is the real numbers.

>>10104658
It isvery much harder to notice your own mistakes than it is to notice other people's. Most people who send papers for publication have colleagues that can proof read for them but I only 4chan for that purpose.
>I'm sure they can figure out something just as wrong. and then you will change it again.
Yes, this is exactly how I develop my ideas. I try to state them and if the statement doesn't look right then I change them and look again. Sometimes I miss my mistakes. Thanks again.

[Anonymous No.10104684]

>>10104623
Just take the differences of consecutive elements of the sequences in >>10104205 as the two new sequences.
The partial sums are the terms of the original sequences, so the series diverge, and the partial sums differ by 1.

[Anonymous No.10104685]

>>10104203
>Or you just split R in 2
He's not so much splitting R in half since none of his "neighborhood of infinity" numbers are real numbers in the first place.
What he's done is more like inventing some kind of parallel copy of R which keeps the additive structure but has some goofy, not-entirely-clear multiplicative structure.. The part where he goes off the rails is that he thinks these new things he's constructed are just plain old real numbers he can do real analysis with, which is also a problem since he doesn't understand undergrad real analysis.

[El Arcón No.10104695]

>>10104684
Every term y_n has an extra one it, so the partial sums will differ by 1 times the number of terms in the partial sums. For the sum of infinity terms, this has the nice property that they differ by infinity and then i can use the multiplicative absorption to make it non-contradictory.

[El Arcón No.10104697]

>>10104685
>doesn't understand undergrad real analysis.
The first thing I learned int he single semester of undergraduate real analysis I took was that a real number is a cut in the real number line. For this reason, I claim that numbers in the neighborhood of infinity are real numbers.

[Anonymous No.10104715]

>>10104695
Let me know if you want to see the rest of the computations.
also testing tex on /sci/:
[math] 2^2 [\math]
>>10104697
If you're talking about Dedekind Cuts, those are subsets of the rationals.

[Anonymous No.10104717]

>>10104715
Typo on the last line.

[Anonymous No.10104756]

>>10104623
okay, this time i'm that guy who posted the contradiction proof

nowhere in the proof do i sum over [math]x_n[/math] or [math]y_n[/math]. i'm just considering just the limit of the sequences x and y as n goes to infinity, not summing their terms. their definitions have a sum inside, but that's why i just wrote out what x and y are for n=0,1,2,3. they're just sequences of integers.

you've made some weird and irrelevant thing by considering summing over x and y. anyhow what i wrote is a proof that infinity is definitely additively absorptive, and that's just a fact of mathematics. you're not going to fix infinity-hat, it's just not possible. i know this because i just know it, but apparently you don't, so if you want to continue arguing we can do so, but it's a very fundamental logical fallacy buried in your construction, so we could argue forever depending on how stubborn you are

[Anonymous No.10104782]

>>10104756
>infinity is definitely additively absorptive
What does this mean?

[El Arcón No.10104784]

>>10104717
looks like you a have another valid contradiction. Thank you.

>>10104756
I think the resolution is that the hat cancels additive absorption whenever we put the hat there but the limits are equal to infinity without the hat. The hat is an instruction not to do additive absorption while the hat is in place.

>you've made some weird and irrelevant thing by considering summing over x and y
I did this to negate your contradiction but then someone else developed another contradiction for the revised definition. I think, therefore, that the limits have to be equal to infinity without the hat. We can still put the hat there to make unique labels for numbers in the neighborhood of infinity.

Thank you to both of you.

[Anonymous No.10104789]

>>10104782
that means that for any real number [math]a[/math]
[eqn]\infty + a = \infty[/eqn]
infinity "absorbs" any finite thing you add to it

[El Arcón No.10104799]

>>10104782
>>10104789
Please consider the hat as an instruction not to do additive absorption.

[Anonymous No.10104813]

>>10104799
okay, you can make some sort of symbology that obeys that "instruction", but it doesn't count as math

i _proved_ that infinity is additively absorptive, using normal math, so if you want people to respect your "instruction" that comes magically by putting a hat symbol over something, then you have to tell them that your system is inconsistent (i.e. it has contradictions) and is therefore just a symbology that contradicts logic

[Anonymous No.10104826]

>>10104789
Infinity isn't a number.

[Anonymous No.10104836]

>>10104799
You need to show that such an object exists.

With those examples above, we showed that any element added to [math] \mathbb{R} [/math] that is the limit of positive divergent sequences has the property of additive absorption.
(Note that series are just another way to represent sequences; a sequence is equal to partial sums of the term-wise differences, and the partial sums of a series is a sequence)
Therefore [math] \hat{\infty} [/math] that has all properties of [math] \infty [/math] except additive absorption does not exist.

[Anonymous No.10104849]

>>10104676
>my ideas
>rely on everyone else to make your entire thermom work
>my ideas
Its not "your" idea if everyone else must correct it, its their ideas on top of a illogical foundation with no meaningful definition. Your entire theory relies on a "i said it is so it is so" basis without any semblance of critical thought. If you can't see the faults in your theory, and cannot defend it beyond your joke of a concept then the theory you have created is beyond your level.
The absurdity and lack of understanding regarding the formal definition of an infinate limit, in the case of of sin and cos at infinity is telling of your ability, or lack thereof to think beyond your own ass.

The statement that infinity hat lets call it b is such that a/b = 0 when a is a real number is laughable. 1/b=0 1/0=b so b^(2)=1^2/0^2 = 1/0 but by that same logic b = b^2 and by the recursive definition of exponention b*b=b thus b=b/b so since your hat infinity is nowhere in the formal recursive definition of multiplication or division therefore b=1, unless b is 0.

[Anonymous No.10104869]

>>10104697
How do you define these cuts? They are defined as subsets of Q, they don't have any infinity!

[El Arcón No.10104918]

>>10104813
It's not inconsistent. There is an inherent freedom to do order of operations in one way or another. The hat says, "Don't do additive absorption yet." You can get the same behavior without the hat by choosing not to do additive absorption yet. The hat is a nice reminder.

>>10104836
>With those examples above
With those examples above you have to look at the instruction not to do additive absorption yet and say, "I can't put it off any longer or else I get a contradiction."

>>10104849
>Its not "your" idea
I ma completely happy to only take credit for the part I did by myself. However, since the results are more clean with the input from third parties I update the results, where appropriate, with that input. This is like what the editor and reviewer do during "peer-review."

>>10104869
A cut in a line is anything that separates the line into to two distinct pieces.

[Anonymous No.10104953]

>>10104918
Additive absorption is not an operation. It is a property that an object has, an statement about the equality of two expression.
You have still yet to give any proof of the existence of the object you are calling [math] \hat{\infty} [/math], which is required to show the existence of the numbers "in the neighborhood of infinity", which is in turn required to show that your counterexample to the Riemann Hypothesis exists.

[El Arcón No.10104979]

>>10104953
nah

[Anonymous No.10104984]

You know, these equations that Jonathan W. Tooker wrote down are undeniably truthful. Why are we ignoring them?

[Anonymous No.10104986]

>>10104979
you wrong bro. infinity-hat doesn't work no matter how hard you try to specify your order of operations. it's for sure logically inconsistent

[Anonymous No.10104989]

>>10099487
tfw the close button in his image actually works

[Anonymous No.10105047]

>>10104849
If he is the only troll left standing, then all the credit is his. This is the Donald Trump way of 'last man standing'. He cares about being right to a sufficiently discriminative audience because he wishes to be cleansed by divine inspection.

I support his psychosis because the tactic works. Too many people in the world care about where the genius comes from instead of it just happening.

I Endorse Jonathan W Tooker. May he remain on this path until his success or death.

[Anonymous No.10105059]

>>10105047
>t. /pol/tard

[Anonymous No.10105066]

>>10105059
Your observation limits who, what, and how?

[Anonymous No.10105150]

>>10104623
From (3) to (4) you literally added an extra summation over n for no reason which wasn't there before. Your final statesmen should be hat(inf) =1+hat(inf)=hat(inf)

[El Arcón No.10105196]

>>10105150
My final statement is that the contradiction indicates that that case is not a good place to use the hat and it should not be used there, or else it should removed as a final step to avoid the contradiction. I attempted another workaround but now I think I will leave Def 1.2.4 how it was.

>>10105047
THANK YOU

[Anonymous No.10105234]

>>10105196
'it' can be done in a day.

[Anonymous No.10105246]

>>10104979
Are you admitting that you don't have an argument anymore?

[Anonymous No.10105267]

>>10105047
I think Tooker has the potential to be a great example of monkeys writing Shakespeare if he could accept that he is always wrong and just pound out the next random iteration of a given proof instead of this "nuh uh" shit

[El Arcón No.10105285]

>>10105234
The prudent will consider in advance my first question on that day: Why not yesterday?

[Anonymous No.10105289]

>>10105285
Because you didn't want to complete your divine work today. Once it is done many will ask for more.

[Anonymous No.10105311]

>>10105047
Who are you to endorse him? What is your name? Please identify yourself.

[Anonymous No.10105317]

>>10105196
So you are ignoring the fact that you added an extra summation where you shouldn't have or are you saying you arbitrarily put it there to make a point? What would it look like if you didn't violate mathematics by putting it there?

[Anonymous No.10105323]

>>10105311
Men of faith are known to their brothers through acts of bondage. Fate is for all.

[Anonymous No.10105327]

>>10105317
You mean abuse of notation, not violate mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10105331]

>>10105323
I'm sorry, is it too late for your schizo brain? Has it already turned to self-righteous mode?

[Anonymous No.10105345]

>>10105331
No. It is just easier to differentiate those that act as if pretending you're crazy means you are versus length-measured critical thought. If it helps think of it as some people's fetish is to be demeaned by trolls.

[Brother Of Memory No.10105421]

>>10105285
I stand with you on the day you need. You will not find me wanting or weak.

[Anonymous No.10107157]

Dynamic entry!

[Anonymous No.10107170]

>>10099400
If x/y=0 then x=0. You showed your non-zero x is zero. Shit's whack.

[El Arcón No.10107245]

>>10107170
Please attempt to prove your claim formally so I can criticize it properly

[Anonymous No.10107272]

>>10107245

[Anonymous No.10107342]

>>10107272
I am impressed at how much effort someone will put into their spare time.

[Anonymous No.10107365]

>>10107342
It took me a few minutes to write up on my phone at dinner. Are you one of those brainlets that starts freaking out when they have a 1000-word paper due tomorrow?

[Anonymous No.10107369]

>>10107272
We need a 4chan journal of science.

[Anonymous No.10107376]

>>10107365
>has a TeX editor on his phone
>plays on his phone to write TeX during dinner
fucking zoomers.....

[El Arcón No.10107391]

>>10107272

[Anonymous No.10107414]

>>10107391
>consider numbers others neglected to consider
i.e. extended the reals

>inf - 1 + 1 = inf
inf is not allowed in your number system, it can't be written as inf - b for some b > 0, that's what I explained in that paragraph.

>[that the operations are ill-defined] doesn't follow at all...
read the last paragraph. When a number system isn't closed under an operation that means the operation is ill-defined.

>If you don't understand what "plus"...
The common arithmetical operations haven't been extended to your number system, you NEED to do this before your proof is valid.

here's an example why the operations need to be extended explicitly:

p^(inf-b) = inf (used to get to your eq 9)
p^(inf-b+1) = p*inf (mult p both sides)
inf = p*inf
i.e. inf is additively absorbtive

inf + inf = inf + inf
inf - a + inf - b = inf + inf - a - b (sub a+b both sides)
inf - a + inf - b = inf - a - b
inf - b = b (i.e. the neighborhood of 0 and the neighborhood of inf are not distinct)

[El Arcón No.10107456]

>>10107414
>i.e. extended the reals
No, not i.e. that. It's like no one ever checked if
z = -7 + 3.4i

was a zero of zeta and then I plugged it in and showed that it was.

>inf is not allowed in your number system
How does this imply that
inf -1 +1 != inf ???

>When a number system isn't closed under an operation that means the operation is ill-defined.
No it doesn't. Take the square root of (2-3). The answer is not a real number and the radical operator is still perfectly well-defined.

>common arithmetical operations haven't been extended
That's because I made no extensions. I use the same "+ - x /" that I got introduced to in kindergarten

>inf is additively absorbtive
I didn't use additive absorption and you have only shown that another operation comes out the same as if it was addtively absorptive. Since the hat means "no additive absorption" it is by definition not additive absorptive. What you showed is a consequence of the multiplicative absorption. You showed a case where multiplicative absorption can be converted to additive absorption in the exponent but if you move into the exponent you have to obey the rule "no additive absorption." Fail harder.

>inf - a + inf - b = inf - a - b
>inf - b = b
I don't see how made the step between these two lines. Are you saying that inf has an additive inverse? If so, I remind you that one of the canonically non-standard properties of inf is that it doesn't have an additive inverse.

[El Arcón No.10107466]

[Anonymous No.10107487]

>>10107456
>It's like no one ever checked if z = -7+3.4i was a zero...
Except z in that case is actually a complex number. None of your zeros are complex numbers, they are elements of the extended number system that you created.

>how does this imply that inf - 1 + 1 != inf ???
Reread my response. I said that inf - 1 + 1 DOES equal inf, but that inf is not in the neighborhood of infinity by your definition of the neighborhood of infinity. Therefore it must either not be in your number system or it must be in the neighborhood of zero. I already explained the problems with that.

>No it doesn't. Take the square root of (2-3)...
Whenever you check if you can take a square root, you check if its positive.
BUT whenever performing addition in your system you have to perform the addition and then check that the result is an allowed number. It means that you have to define a different operation in order to check if your operation is even defined, and then you have to prove that you have not created an illegal number every single time you addition, every single time you used multiplication, every single time you use exponentiation, and every single time you use any of their inverses.

>I made know extensions
please look up the definition of extensions in a mathematical context

> multiplicative absorption != additive absorption
2inf = inf + int and 2inf = inf
its additively absorptive
>move into the exponent
Do you mean use p*p^n = p^(n+1)? If this is invalid under your system you have to say so. This is a perfect example of the ill-definedness of your operations.

>inf doesn't have an additive inverse
what's that -z_0 doing in your formula for the zeta function then, bucko?

[Anonymous No.10107496]

>>10107272
based

[Anonymous No.10107547]

>>10107466
cringe at you sending this to them

[El Arcón No.10107554]

>>10107487
None of your zeros are complex numbers
You are wrong. I proved that these are real numbers. If you disagree, then identify the error in theorem 1.3 (pic). The numbers I use are complex numbers because Z is complex number if
Z = X + iY

and X,Y are both real numbers. You are totally wrong.

>. None of your zeros are complex numbers
saying there's a problem and explaining it are different.

>you have to perform the addition and then check that the result is an allowed number
No you don't. The result, whatever it is, is defined by the operations. You are totally stupid.

>illegal
It's not an illegal number. We call it "an extended real number." If an extended real number isn't equal to infinity then we call it "a real number." Your idea that the numbers have to be closed is like saying the numbers have to be a group or a vector space or something, but that is just your own stupid farts. There is no law "a thing can only be a number if it closed under some operations."

> every single time
Nope, I never to check it. Give me one reason why I would "have to" check it. The output of any operation is defined by the corresponding law, there is nothing to check other than whether or not you obeyed the composition law.

>please look up the definition of extensions
If everyone searches my apartment for my keys and can't find them, and then I open the drawer and find them, did I extend my apartment by opening the drawer? HINT: The answer is no. The numbers I use are ordinary real numbers.

>its additively absorptive
By definition, it is not. The multiplicative absorption can be used to yield the same result in this case as if it was additively absorptve, but BY FUCKING DEFINITION YOU FUCKING CRETIN it is not additively absorptive. You are so stupid, I hope your sons' testicle get torn from their bodies.

>If this is invalid under your system you have to say so.
It's not invalid though, and if you look you can see me use that exact property.

[El Arcón No.10107558]

>>10107487
>what's that -z_0 doing in your formula for the zeta function then, bucko?
look again. If you push yourself really hrd you might notice that
z_0 != inf

[Anonymous No.10107576]

>>10107554
The set of real numbers is defined as a ordered field that is Dedekind-Complete.
If the set of numbers your are working with are not closed under addition and multiplication, it is not a field, and thus not the set of real numbers.

[El Arcón No.10107596]

>>10107576
A real number is cut in the real number line. A Dedekind cut is some irrelevant extra complication for applications beyond the scope of my elementary application. This is like when I was saying "numbers" and the other guy was saying "number fields." Now I'm saying "a cut" which is the most general definition, and you are saying "Dedekind cut." I am using cuts, not Dedekind cuts. Nice straw man: "Let me say he's using Dedekind cuts and then argue against that instead of considering the claim he actually made about cuts."

It's not that numbers have to be number fields; it's that you missed a huge swath of numbers because you were thinking about number fields instead of numbers.

[Anonymous No.10107612]

>>10107596
The Riemann zeta function is defined over the field of complex numbers, which is defined by adjoining the field of real numbers with i, the root of the polynomial x^2 + 1.
If your example is not in the field of complex numbers, it is not a counterexample to the Riemann Hypothesis.

Nothing in my post talked about Dedekind cuts. Dedekind completeness refers to the existence of the supremum of any subset that is bounded above. The second thing done in any undergrad analysis course should be the uniqueness of real numbers; that the Dedekind cut construction is isomorphic to any ordered field with the least upper bound property.
In any case, this still does change the fact that the Riemann zeta function is defined over the field of complex numbers, and any number not in the number field are not counterexamples to the Riemann Hypothesis.

[El Arcón No.10107635]

>>10107612
>The Riemann zeta function is defined over the field of complex numbers
This is true. It is also true that the domain zeta is "all complex numbers." Riemann did not make an exception, "Let me continue the domain from R to C except for any elements of C which don't satisfy the definition of a number field."

Maybe if you weren't so preoccupied with number fields you could have gotten the $1M for noticing these other numbers where zeta is zero.

ME: Hey look at this thing.
YOU: You moron! That thing isn't a thing of variety 98a5-896c.

[El Arcón No.10107669]

I think I laid out some good instructions for a Yang-Mills mass gap proof here if anyone else would like to get the other $1M. Page seven.
>The Golden Ratio in the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1807.0136

[Anonymous No.10107677]

>>10107635
The Riemann Hypothesis is a statement about Complex numbers. If you aren't going to use the definitions of real and complex numbers accepted by the vast majority of mathematitions including Riemann, you statements have nothing to do with the Riemann Hypothesis.

[El Arcón No.10107688]

>>10107677
I'm using the definition that Z is a complex number if
Z = X + iY

for two real numbers X and Y. This is the standard definition. You seem to be having difficulty recognizing that the reason "number field" and "numbers" have different name is because they are different things. This is a key concept that you should study closely until you understand it. Or just kill yourself.

[El Arcón No.10107699]

[Anonymous No.10107704]

>>10107688
And you are.not using the standard definition of real numbers.
Numbers and number fields are different, in that numbers are elements of number fields.
The fact that the sets of real numbers anf complex numbers are defined to be fields is a key concept you should study closely until you understand it. Or just kill yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number

[Anonymous No.10107735]

>>10107365
Why would 1,000 words be scary? Most people can't tell content from congruence I guess.

[Anonymous No.10108231]

>>10107558
yes, it is a number in the nighborhood of zero plus an imaginary number, and if that has a additive inverse, so does a number in the neighborhood of infinity

[Anonymous No.10108245]

>>1010755
>You are wrong. I proved that these are real number. If you disagree, then identify the error in theorem 1.3 (pic).
Arbitrarily large does not imply that the the quotient with a number within the radius will be zero (your eq 3).
Proof:
Assume that their is a real number y > R such that x/y = 0, R > x > 0:
This implies that x = 0y. For any give real R, there is no real number that satisfies this property, su the original assumption must be wrong.
Give me the value of R needed to make all of your math work.

Your zeros aren't complex numbers because a system that isn't closed under addition is not the real numbers, so your zeros aren't complex numbers. You seem to think there is some weird dichotomy between maghematical objects and the operations defined on them, but in reality the number system is defined by the operations and vice versa. Your numbers lack important properties of the reals, so they are not reals. Saying they are and proving that they are different.

>Theresult, whatever it is, is defined by the operations. You are totally stupid.
Remove the reqrment that b > 0 then. as it is, inf cannot be expressed as inf - b for some b > 0, so it is not in the neighborhood of infinity by your own definition.

>illegal
I was referring to numbers that are not extended reals by YOUR own definition. Look above.

>nope.
because if you don't prove that the result of an operation is valid its not a valid proof.

>the numbers are real numbers
then why do they fail to have a bunch of properties that define real numbers? Please look up the definition of reals numbers and you will see this.

>BY DEFINITION YOU FRUCKING CRETIN
and I showed that in the way you used it, this definition is not consistent. You CANNOT construct a mathematical object and have it behave the way it did in your proof, and that is what my proof shows. It's called a proof by contradiction.

>I used the exact property
...soooooo both my proofs showing inconsistencies in your system are valid

[Anonymous No.10108264]

>>10108245
>>10107554

whoops deleted the last digit when responding to you

[El Arcón No.10108414]

>>10107704
>the standard definition of real numbers.
I am though. The standard definition is that a real number is a cut in the real number line.

>that numbers are elements of number fields
This is true. It also true that some numbers are not elements of number fields.

>so does a number in the neighborhood of infinity
yup. infinity is one of those numbers though, and it does not have an additive inverse.

[Anonymous No.10108415]

>>10108414
>The standard definition is that a real number is a cut in the real number line.
that's not the standard definition at all, though

[Anonymous No.10108418]

>>10108414
>i am using the standard definition of real numbers
>infinity is one of those numbers though, and it does not have an additive inverse.

[El Arcón No.10108428]

>>10108245
>This implies that x = 0y
That's only true if "y" has a multiplicative inverse.

>aren't complex numbers because a system that isn't closed under addition
Closure under operations isn't part of the definition of a real number. A real number is a cut in the real number line.

>your numbers lack important properties of the reals
only required property for a real is that it is a cut in the real number line. The numbers I considered all have that property.

>Remove the reqrment that b > 0 then
no

>I was referring to numbers that are not extended reals by YOUR own definition.
I was the not who defined the extended reals. Whoever did it defined them as the union of the reals with +/- infinity.

> if you don't prove that the result of an operation is valid its not a valid proof.
If a result of a composition operation follows the composition law then the result is valid. This is always true in all cases.

>then why do they fail to have a bunch of properties that define real numbers?
I think you are still, stupidly, referring the properties of a real number field as the properties of the real numbers.

>the definition of reals numbers
is that a real number is a cut in the real number line.

>and I showed that in the way you used it, this definition is not consistent.
You did not. You showed that the multiplicative absorptive property can be applied in certain cases such that the outcome is the same as what it would have been if there was additive absorptive property.

[Anonymous No.10108431]

>>10108428
jon you need to provide some kind of reference or citation on your definition of reals

[El Arcón No.10108433]

>>10108415
>that's not the standard definition at all, though
yes it is.

>>10108418
that should have said, obviously, that infinity is *NOT* one of the reals

[El Arcón No.10108438]

>>10108431

[Anonymous No.10108442]

>>10108438
did you read further in that page, where it says
>These descriptions of the real numbers are not sufficiently rigorous by the modern standards of pure mathematics. The discovery of a suitably rigorous definition of the real numbers – indeed, the realization that a better definition was needed – was one of the most important developments of 19th-century mathematics. The current standard axiomatic definition is that real numbers form the unique Dedekind-complete ordered field (R ; + ; · ; <), up to an isomorphism,[a] whereas popular constructive definitions of real numbers include declaring them as equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rational numbers, Dedekind cuts, or infinite decimal representations, together with precise interpretations for the arithmetic operations and the order relation. All these definitions satisfy the axiomatic definition and are thus equivalent.
you're operating on definitions that haven't been considered relevant or useful for more than a hundred years

[Anonymous No.10108448]

>>10108431
>>10108442
Your criticisms kind of suck, man.
His identification of the reals with Dedekind cuts of Q is not problematic at all. It's actually one of the few things he's claiming that's completely waterproof and totally standard.
The actual problem is that this just passes the buck one step down the line; there is no Dedekind cut corresponding to the infinities he uses unless you've already built the whole system of infinite hats into Q to begin with, in which case "please define these infinities" still needs a resolution.

[Anonymous No.10108450]

>>10108448
john explicitly said he's not talking about Dedekind cuts, though

[El Arcón No.10108455]

>>10108442
>operating on definitions that haven't been considered relevant or useful for more than a hundred years
I'm using the definition Riemann was using when he made his hypothesis

[Anonymous No.10108464]

>>10108448
I think he is talking about "cuts" that are somehow not Dedekind cuts but something different. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but that's what I'm taking away from >>10107596.

[Anonymous No.10108466]

>>10108464
>I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean
that's why i asked him to elaborate, im not sure

[Anonymous No.10108467]

>>10108450
>>10108464
I had assumed his problem with them was that he didn't like the two axioms designed to make sure +- infinity stays out of R.
Those conditions aren't fundamentally part of the construction, they're just tacked on because for most purposes we don't want extended R.
There is no notion of a "cut" in Q which isn't just going to be a Dedekind cut.

[El Arcón No.10108481]

>>10108464
A Dedekind cut has a bunch of specific properties. A cut has one property: it can be used to measure distance along a line.

>make sure +- infinity stays out of R.
Infinity is not a real number so this not something that needs to be made sure.

[Anonymous No.10108496]

>>10108481
>A cut has one property: it can be used to measure distance along a line.
Yes, but what _IS_ a cut?
A Dedekind cut is a partition of R into two subsets which satisfy certain properties.
Now you've said what properties a cut has, but what kind of object is it?

[Anonymous No.10108501]

>>10108496
*partition of Q, not R
my bad

[Anonymous No.10108508]

>>10108496
>A Dedekind cut is a partition of R into two subsets which satisfy certain properties.
Now you've said what properties a cut has, but what kind of object is it?
Careful -- you are talking to a person who seems to think that is all the definition anyone requires.

[El Arcón No.10108516]

>>10108496
>Yes, but what _IS_ a cut?
A cut separates a line into two pieces.

>but what kind of object is it?
It's a number

>all the definition anyone requires.
Certainly I don't need more definition that what Riemann himself was working with.

[Anonymous No.10108526]

>>10108428
>the definition of reals numbers
>is that a real number is a cut in the real number line.

>>10108516
>but what kind of object is it?
>It's a number

[Anonymous No.10108528]

>>10099612
These equations won't get you anywhere, anon. The floor function isn't analytically useful

[Anonymous No.10108537]

Can we stop humoring this guy already? We are only making his condition worse this way.

[Anonymous No.10108544]

>>10108455
>Riemann, the leading developer of rigorous analysis of the 19th century, did not use the rigorous definition of real numbers developed in the 19th century
>The Clay Math Institute, at the end of the 20th century, did not use the rigorous definition of real numbers developed in the 19th century.
Pass me some of what you're smoking.

[Anonymous No.10108546]

>>10108537
>We are only making his condition worse this way.
I disagree. This is probably a very good outlet, actually.
/sci/ is the only safe place where he can act out this behaviour harmlessly as much as he wants. If he wasn't posting here all the time he would instead probably be harassing actual academics to read his work and then vaguely insinuating he's going to torture their children.

[Anonymous No.10108549]

>>10108516
just out of curiosity, can you describe how you'd go about cutting to get pi?

[El Arcón No.10108563]

>>10108549
Choose an origin along an infinitely long line. Choose any other point. Define the distance between the two as pi.

[Anonymous No.10108582]

>>10108428
>That's only true if "y" has a multiplicative inverse.
It does... x/y is x times the multiplicative inverse of y

>Closure under operations isn't part of the definition of real numbers
It's part of the definition of real numbers that the Riemann Hypothesis is stated on.

>only required property is...
That is wrong. From the wikipedia page:
Axiom 1. If x < y, then not y < x.
Axiom 2. If x < z, there exists a y such that x < y and y < z.
Axiom 3. for all X, Y ⊆ R, if for all x ∈ X and y ∈ Y, x < y, then there exists a z such that for all x ∈ X and y ∈ Y, if z ≠ x and z ≠ y, then x < z and z < y.
Axiom 4. x + (y + z) = (x + z) + y.
Axiom 5. For all x, y, there exists a z such that x + z = y.
Axiom 6. If x + y < z + w, then x < z or y < w.
Axiom 7. 1 ∈ R.
Axiom 8. 1 < 1 + 1.

There is also an equivalent definition using Dedekind cuts, but it also requires closure under addition. If you define reals differently, then theorems for the real numbers are not expected to hold.

>no
then your numbers are not closed under addition and therefore not real numbers

>Whoever did it defined them as the union of the reals with +/- infinity.
So its a superset of the reals, hence your proof is invalid. Also you DID define them in your paper, and you defined them differently.

>the composition law
Please state this law and prove that your operations follow it then

>you are still, stupidly, referring the properties of a real number field as the properties of the real numbers.
They are one and the same, and the Riemann Hypothesis is a statement about the real number field. Again, as I said, you seem to be still, stupidly, referring to mathematical objects as if they exist independently of the operations defined on them.

>made up "definition" of the real numbers
This is not the definition Riemann used, and so your disproof has nothing to do with his Hypothesis

>You did not.
I did. I showed that multiplicative absorption implies additive absorption. Outta room

[El Arcón No.10108615]

>>10108582
To show that number has multiplicative inverse it is not sufficient to say that you can divide by it. To show that X' is the multiplicative inverse of X you need to show that the multiplicative composition of X and X' is equal to one.

>It's part of the definition of real numbers that the Riemann Hypothesis is stated on.
No it isn't. If you're referring to Dedekind cuts, they didn't exist until years after Riemann posed his hypothesis.

>From the wikipedia page
what page?

>numbers are not closed under addition and therefore not real numbers
real numbers are not required to be closed under addition. Real number are only required to be cuts in the real number line.

> Also you DID define them in your paper
I didn't even use the phrase "extended reals" much less restate the definition that every undergrad knows.

>Please state this law
I refer you to the usual definitions for "plus," "minus," "times," and "divided by."

>Riemann Hypothesis is a statement about the real number field.
No it isn't. Riemann continued the real numbers to the complex numbers.

>This is not the definition Riemann used
You seem to be saying that he used the definition that didn't exist until years later. If you think he used the definition from 1872 back in 1859 please tell us that this is your opinion. If you think he used some other definition, and its not the usual one about reals being cuts in the real number line, then please state the definition that you think Riemann used.

>I showed that multiplicative absorption implies additive absorption.
No you didn't. You showed a case in which multiplicative absorption can be used to produce a result that is equivalent to that which would be produced by additive absorption if it was allowed.

[El Arcón No.10108621]

>If you think he used the definition from 1872 back in 1859 please tell us that this is your opinion.

[Anonymous No.10108636]

>>10108615
>the usual one about reals being cuts in the real number line
If you think this definition is the "usual" one, please provide a source that explicitly defines the reals this way, because no one else has ever heard of it.
I will accept explicit to mean that it uses the exact word "cut" at some point, but does not say "Dedekind cut".

[Anonymous No.10108648]

>>10108615
>To show that number has multiplicative inverse it is not sufficient to say that you can divide by it.
The definition of division is mutliplication by the inverse. You assumed that you can divide by it in your eq 3, therefore you assumed that it has a multiplicative inverse. You said you used the standard definition division, so there's no way you can get out of this.

>No it isn't.
I wasn't referring to Dedekind cuts, I was referring to the real numbers which result from any of the axiomizations listed on the wikipedia page. Your numbers are inconsistent with all such aciomizations.

>what wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers?wprov=sfti1

>real numbers are only required to be cuts in the real number line.
YOUR "real numbers" maybe, but the ones used by Riemann DO have other requirements.

>I didn't [define the extended reals] in my paper
I was referring to your definition of the neighborhoods of infinity and zero, that's why I usually say _your_ extended reals, because they are not defined the same way as extended reals.

>I state the usual definitions of...
No no, you misunderstood me. I am looking for a clarification of this statement:
>If a result of a composition operation follows the composition law then the result is valid.
Please define these "composition laws" and then prove this statement.

Also, the normal definition of addition is as a mapping from R*R to R (where * is cartesian product, and R is real numbers). In your paper you consider the union of R_0 and R hat (which I will call R_h) as equivalent to R. I have alreay showed that addition in your paper cannot be a mapping from (R_0 U R_h)*(R_0 U R_h) to R_0 U R_h, so you are not using the standard definitions.

>No it isn't, its a statement about the complex numbers
...which are built upon the real number field, so while it is not DIRECTLY about the real number field, it is INDIRECTLY about the real number field.

Ran out of room, to be continued...

[Anonymous No.10108669]

>>10108615
>If you think he used the definition from 1872 back in 1859...
Can you disprove the Riemann Hypothesis using the reals as defined by Cantor? If not, no one cares. Cantor's definition is the first rigorous one, but Descartes introduced the term "real number" in the 17th century to describe non-imaginary roots of polynomials over the rational numbers. There is no rational polynomial which had infinity as a root.

>No you didn't.
I showed that 2inf = inf, or for that matter pinf = inf.
Multiplication, as defined by the standard definitions you claim to use, is repeated addition. Therefore inf + inf = inf. If you see a flaw with my proof, point it out. Here, I'll even restate it:

p^(inf-b) = inf (from your paper)
p^(inf-b+1) = pinf (mult by p)
inf = pinf (from your paper)

From the standard definition of multiplication:
2*x = x + x
2inf = inf + inf (x = inf)
inf = inf + inf (using the proof above with p = 2)

[Anonymous No.10108679]

>>10108669
he's just going to say that implied additive absorption is a different thing than explicit additive absorption and it's possible to have one without the other, or something like that

[Anonymous No.10108697]

>>10108679
thx for the insightful inb4, fren.

If that is your response, Schizoid anon, then you must prove that they are different and prove that you can have one without the other.

[El Arcón No.10108707]

>>10108636
>please provide a source
The definition you guys keep using didn't exist until years after Riemann published his hypothesis. If you can produce an example of a definition of real numbers that existed at the time of the formulation of Riemann's hypothesis then I will do some digging to try to find a source. However, when you rely on a definition that did not exist until many years after RH was posed, it is like you are countering my claim about with another claim, essentially, that real numbers were undefined until many years after RH was posed. If you can define real numbers in a way that existed in 1859, then I will do some digging to determine what the discrepancy is between our definitions. However, as it stands, you guys keep saying, "The hypothesis from 1859 uses this definition from 1872 as a prerequisite," and that is so utterly stupid that I am not sufficiently motivated to embark on a research project at your behest. My explanation, "My analysis teacher told me in 2006," is better than you explanation, "Riemann used the thing from 1872 in 1859."

Please state a definition of real numbers that didn't get invented many years after RH was considered an important problem.

[Anonymous No.10108709]

>>10099400
Whatever math this is, this isn't math most mathematicians (all mathematicians) are doing so whatever problem the Riemann hypothesis is framed in the author's mind (it's probably nonsense), it's unrelated to the one that is commonly posed.

For example:

"Let R be separated between real numbers in the neighbourhood of the origin and real numbers in the neighbourhood of ininity."

This is pure nonsense (or at best, is written so poorly it reads as pure nonsense). What does "the neighbourhood" refer to? Mathematicians have a notion of neighbourhoods, but there isn't some canonical neighbourhood that we call "the neighbourhood". Also, I know this notion of neighbourhood cannot be the same as the notion Mathematicians have axiomatized because there are no neighbourhoods of infinity in the set of real numbers. Sure, you can do a one point compactification and talk about neighbourhoods of infinity there, but the author has clearly averted such a definition. What does it mean for R to be separated by neighbourhoods? You can separate points, by which I mean, for two different points, you can find disjoint neighbourhoods containing each of those points. R is separable, as in, has a countable dense subset (the rationals). I can't think of any other notion of separability that makes any amount of sense in this context.

[Anonymous No.10108711]

>>10107466
100% guaranteed rejection. You make the university you got your degree from look bad

[El Arcón No.10108718]

>>10108648
>therefore you assumed that it has a multiplicative inverse.
This is illogical. A number X has an inverse X' if and only iff
X * X' = 1

There is no proxy for this requirement.

>please provide a source
Please state a definition of real numbers that existed in 1859 besides the one I am using. You seem to have knowledge about what Riemann was using, please share it with us.

>addition is as a mapping
Addition is a composition. You are thinking about an additive function. They are different.

>built upon the real number field
This is wrong. The definition of a complex number is that Z is a complex number if X and Y are complex numbers and
Z = X + iY

[Anonymous No.10108719]

>>10107554
>you are totally stupid.
>but that is just your own stupid farts.
>BY FUCKING DEFINITION YOU FUCKING CRETIN it is not additively absorptive. You are so stupid, I hope your sons' testicle get torn from their bodies.

Let's all point and laugh as he resorts to name calling when his ego is flustered and tries to come up with a way to not face the fact that he cannot do basic math or follow arguments made against him.

[Anonymous No.10108720]

>>10108707
>If you can produce an example of a definition of real numbers that existed at the time of the formulation of Riemann's hypothesis...
Look at my post >>10108669
Descarte introduced the term "real number" and your numbers do not fall within his definition.

[El Arcón No.10108724]

>>10108669
What is Cantor's definition of reals?

The proof you write there doesn't have a problem. The problem is when you an unrelated statement at the end "Therefore it is additively absorptive."

>>10108679
pretty much. I say it because it's true.

[Anonymous No.10108732]

>>10107669
Normally, I'd be glad and interested to read whatever ideas about the mass gap (even if it is entirely by happenstance), but from Tooker, I know it's taking on deaf ears and blind eyes, so not worth my time.

[Anonymous No.10108733]

>>10107688
>or just kill yourself

Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha

Sorry Tooker, but above that works well for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone else

[Anonymous No.10108744]

>>10108718
>There is no proxy for this argument
The standard definition of division that you claim to be using is multiplication by the multiplicative inverse. So if u use division you use multiplicitive inverses.

>Please state a definition of real numbers that existed in 1859 besides the one I am using
look at my other response. I provided such a definition. Due to Descartes, the incentor of the term "real numbers" as they are used today.

>addition is a composition. You are thinking of an additive function, which is different.
Composition =/= addition. Composition is when a map from the cartesian product of a function space with a function space to a function space.
Addition is a map from R^2 to R. If this is not the case, state your definition of addition. Even if it is the "standard" definition that I should know of, state it anyway please. Same for multiplition, subtraction, division, and exponentiation.

>The definition of a complex number is that Z is a complex number if X and Y are complex numbers and Z = X + iY
That is a circular definition. The actual requirement is that X and Y are elements of the real number field.

[Anonymous No.10108753]

>>10108481
>A cut has one property: it can be used to measure distance along a line.

That is a consequence, not a property. Maybe that's your issue with mathematics, you don't understand the difference between properties, definitions, and uses.

[El Arcón No.10108757]

>>10108733
Yeah well... a lot of people who ignore my teachings to kill themselves will be sorely regretting it when their living flesh falls into my hands later on.

[El Arcón No.10108764]

>>10108744
>Due to Descartes
Yeah, this is the one I use. The roots of the polynomials are at certain "distances" from the origin of the real number line.

>The actual requirement is that X and Y are elements of the real number field.
Complex numbers got invented before number fields got invented dumbass.

[Anonymous No.10108773]

>>10108718
x/y = 1*(x/y) = 1*x/y = x*1/y = x*(1/y)
Do you agree with this statement? If not, specifically which step do you disagree with?

[Anonymous No.10108774]

>>10108764
>Yeah this is the one I use
Show me a polynomial with rational coefficients that has infinity hat as a root. Also polynomials require closure under addition and multiplication in order to exist.

>Complex numbers got invented before number fields were invented dumbass.
Wrong. They were invented before the term "number field" was invented, but not before number fields were studied and used.

[Anonymous No.10108792]

>>10108757
You are not the Lord. You are not YHWH. You are neither mighty nor almighty nor have any sovereignty nor power over me or my life. If you disagree, I welcome you to provide any evidence. If you have killed others previously, please give me undeniable evidence of such. If it was not by your hand or a direct consequence of something you have control over, then it was not by you and you have no power or control.

[Anonymous No.10108793]

>>10108792
come on anon, don't derail the thread, you'll just get it deleted

[Anonymous No.10108798]

>>10108793
Is that really a bad thing? Perhaps it's useful for non-schozos to see these things and have an example why they're useful, but come on, it's incessantly repetitive with Tooker.

[El Arcón No.10108831]

>>10108773
I agree

>>10108774
>Show me a polynomial with rational coefficients that has infinity hat as a root.
Why? I haven't claimed that infinity is a real number.

>>10108792
>You are not the Lord
pic

[Anonymous No.10108855]

>>10108831
So from x/y = x*(1/y),
Let's define (1/y) = y'
Then consider y*y' = y*(1/y) = 1*y/y = 1, meaning y' is the multiplicative inverse of y.

Claiming you can divide by y states there is a multiplicative inverse of y.

[Anonymous No.10108858]

>>10108831
That existed long before you, so gtfo

[Anonymous No.10108943]

>>10099400
This paper is really short it should be very easy to verify it in coq. Do it an and report results please.
Here is a link to get you started.
https://coq.inria.fr/

[El Arcón No.10109058]

>>10108855
Yes, this is the normal way to show a multiplicative inverse exists.

>Claiming you can divide by y states there is a multiplicative inverse of y.
Your argument is circular because at the step
>1*y/y = 1
you assume that y has a multiplicative inverse.

>>10108858
>That existed long before you, so gtfo
pic

[Anonymous No.10109161]

>>10109058
Yes, i am saying that, as the other anon also mentioned, if there is division, you are claiming that there is a muktiplicative inverse. I'll let you now go back and consider the implications previously stated in this thread about that.

[Anonymous No.10109163]

>>10109058
Neither are referring to you, especially with how much you correct people when they say John instead of Jon

[Anonymous No.10109169]

This thread is the scariest thing I've seen all Halloween

[Anonymous No.10109172]

>>10104979
best post in this thread so far

[El Arcón No.10109183]

>>10109172
thanks

[Anonymous No.10109232]

>>10109183
I made a thread called "Hey Jon! Get in Here!" please grace it with your presence m'lord

[Anonymous No.10109484]

>>10099487
>actually knew who posted here
Tell me how I know you're a self-important nobody.