Limits of Sine and Cosine by

[The Landlord No.10125159]

Greatly improved in v5
>Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
>www.vixra.org/abs/1809.0234

Who was right?

[Anonymous No.10125170]

I wanna read for the laughs but nigga 70 pages.

[Anonymous No.10125182]

>>10125159
Limits if sine and cosine at infinity are both -1/12

[Anonymous No.10125186]

imagine spending this much time to produce absolute, incoherent dreck

Imagine being jon tooker

[Anonymous No.10125188]

>>10125159
The limits of sine and cosine at infinity are both -1/12

[The Landlord No.10125194]

>>10125170
it's in a large font and quadruple spaced.

[Anonymous No.10125220]

>>10125194
I read one page every five seconds and it still wasn't worth it.

[Anonymous No.10125235]

>>10125186
Lol I know. What a load of bullshit. I feel like people who do this shit do it just to stroke their own ego and make themselves feel smart

[The Landlord No.10125247]

>>10125220
did you find something wrong? If so, was it of genus errata or genus error?

[Anonymous No.10125258]

lol you idiot sin goes back and forth from -1 to 1, there is no limit lol

[Anonymous No.10125262]

>>10125247
Fucking based pic Jon.

[Anonymous No.10125272]

>>10125258
Whoa dude, better be careful with that intuition and logic there, you might actually call him out on his bullshit

[The Landlord No.10125299]

>>10125262
I think a lot of people liked that one. Pic is from 2012 but if you do the overlay on the lines I think you will see something peculiar about chronology. (Pic is from the Benghazi video actually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q18hXaE-FpU )
>tfw it's not hard to make me look stupid

[Anonymous No.10125355]

Prove using your hat infinity that lim x->inf x*(x+1)/2 = -1/12 and then i will be convinced. Not shitposting.

[Anonymous No.10125371]

>>10125355
The reason i say this is that if it does turn out true, then you would have an explanation outside of the definition of the zeta function and number trickery as to why zeta -1 = -1/12 but the infinate sum does not.

[The Landlord No.10125414]

>>10125355
I have gone through the derivation of -1/12 before. I will probably have a look again. This seems like a good research direction. Good suggestion.

[The Landlord No.10125422]

>>10125371
>why zeta -1 = -1/12 but the infinate sum does not.
Could you clarify this? What precisely is the contentious issue between these two cases?

[Anonymous No.10125435]

>>10125299
Interested in those leads re: typo insertion. I imagine it's some routine javascript.

[Anonymous No.10125465]

>>10125422
The riemann zeta function is formally defined as the infinate sum, except for negative values of x, these values give rise to the equation 1 +2+3+4+5... which is generally agreed ro not equal the continuations of the zeta function that are valid for all non negative values of x. We just take the negative values based on a few formulas that work for all other numbers. Technically speaking there is no law saying an infinate sum of continously increasing sequences can't equal a constant due to the rules of infinate sets and infinity being so finnicky and difficult to prove.

[The Landlord No.10125512]

>>10125435
Whatever it was, Benghazi happened a few days later and then it became a scandal about a video and who changed the talking points, and the people who did it have not yet been brought to justice. In fact, they have enjoyed their impunity to the extend that they no longer just fuck with me on the computer, now they do it in real life too. Even unto this day.

[Anonymous No.10125518]

>>10125247
Why do post pictures of yourself? Looking like a damn cue ball.

[Anonymous No.10125526]

Here's where you fucked up, it's impossible for a linear function on R to go to infinity, so this snippet is nonsensical

[The Landlord No.10125637]

>>10125526
Let
f(x) = infinity * x + 5

Then
f(x) = infinity

Therefore
f : R --> {overline R}

Which part is nonsencial.

>>10125518
My reaction folder is running low on anime girls

[Anonymous No.10125641]

>>10125637
But you yourself determined that infinity in R is absorptive

[The Landlord No.10125654]

>>10125641
Your post seems to support my claim that Thm 1.2.7 is perfectly well posed.

[The Landlord No.10125927]

[Anonymous No.10125945]

>>10125927
How sad is your life you need to brag on this site?

[The Landlord No.10125957]

>>10125945
It's pretty sad but I'm not bragging. I'm here to burn time until I feel sleepy because I have nothing better to do.

[Anonymous No.10125962]

>>10125159
Give me a quick rundown

[Anonymous No.10125964]

Im goin in boyz

[Anonymous No.10125971]

>>10125927
>Used one to one instead of injective

[Anonymous No.10126001]

>>10125927
>acknowledges receipt
literally means nothing

[The Landlord No.10126007]

>>10126001
no

[Anonymous No.10126012]

>>10126007
The Editorial Board of This Random Anon acknowledges receipt of the following post:

Author(s): Jonathan W. TOOKER
Number: 10126007
Post characters: 12

You will hear from us as soon as a decision is made concerning a response to your post. Until then, we would most appreciate if you could inform us of any change in your username.

Sincerely yours,

Anonymous
Random-ass-poster

[Anonymous No.10126013]

I don't see the accepted definition of a limit at infinity given anywhere in the paper, so I can only assume you don't know what it is.

[Anonymous No.10126033]

>>10125927
HONESTLY WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS TRUE

[Anonymous No.10126045]

>>10125957
>I have nothing better to do.
What about studying mathematics? If you do that for a while, eventually you might actually understand the problem you are trying to solve.

[The Landlord No.10126048]

>>10126013
probably not. what is it? i'll tell you if I'm familiar with it. I thought it was pic

[Anonymous No.10126050]

>>10126048
>I thought
That's where you fucked up, dumb-dumb

[The Landlord No.10126056]

>>10126045
I have had so many indisputable discoveries
>http://www.vixra.org/author/jonathan_w_tooker
that got ignored in my physics research that I'm not really motivated to do the rigorous slogging of the rudimentary mathematical tedium of formality just to make more contributions that will ignored by the mathematicians instead of the physicists. The next book I open will probably be a QFT book but since I have already done so much lately I am in the phase "wait and think" which is in between my phases of "write papers about new discoveries." However, if the mathematicians embrace me where the physicists have rejected me, I would have to reevaluate based on new information. Also, studying for more than a couple hours a day, even when I am in study mode, is not realistic for me. The brain fluid runs out.

[Anonymous No.10126058]

>>10126048
This is basic real analysis stuff.

If a sequence converges to L, then for any positive error margin you can find an integer N such that after the Nth entry in the sequence, you're always within that error margin from L

For functions, it's really similar except instead of an integer N, pick any real number X, and it's for any x>X.

[The Landlord No.10126060]

>>10126050
What is the correct answer then, faggot?

[Anonymous No.10126062]

>>10126060
I'm not doing the work for you faggot, fuck off

[The Landlord No.10126063]

>>10126058
So... you're saying it's totally equivalent to the definition I used:
>>10126048

[Anonymous No.10126064]

>>10126056
>indisputable discoveries
>"derivation" of fine structure constant

[The Landlord No.10126067]

>>10126062
If you're the one saying "this is wrong" without giving the answer you think is right then be assured, between you and I, it is you who is the faggot.

[Anonymous No.10126068]

>>10126063
You literally say nothing at all about error margins in the equation you posted.

[Anonymous No.10126069]

>>10126056
>I have had so many indisputable discoveries
that got ignored in my physics research
Did you consider the possibility that your discoveries are all nonsense, and you don't know the material well enough to distinguish legitimate progress from incoherent drivel?

[Anonymous No.10126070]

>>10126067
I'm not the only one calling you a dumb nigger fren

[The Landlord No.10126071]

>>10126064
Are you disputing that
2 pi + (Phi pi)^3 ~ 137?

Or do you dispute that this is within 0.4% of the currently accepted value?

Or do you dispute that there aren't multiple of assumptions which go into the "determination of the FSC to 10 sig figs?"

[Anonymous No.10126073]

>>10126071
I'm disputing that it's a derivation and asserting that it's pure numerology.

[The Landlord No.10126076]

>>10126069
I did consider it and I was able to rule out that possibility because all of my results are 100% reproducible.

[Anonymous No.10126079]

>>10126076
I really hope you don't sincerely believe this.

[The Landlord No.10126080]

>>10126073
Please give an example of how numbers of the form x~137 could be separated from numerology or could be anything other than pure numerology

[Anonymous No.10126085]

>>10126080
Can you apply your framework to derive any gauge couplings other than the QED coupling? If not, it's numerology.

[Anonymous No.10126087]

This guy is fucking insane lol
https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1wsdlx/dae_get_email_from_jonathan_tooker/
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ukbz6/i_am_the_anonymous_physicist_featured_in_the/

He's also tangentially related to: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mohamed_El_Naschie

We are dealing with a man so autistic he was run off of reddit

[The Landlord No.10126089]

>>10126079
I do believe it. If you don't, please cite something irreproducible. Pic related, are you unable to reproduce the three most important dimansionless constants of physics within this one simple framework that I developed. If you think it's incidental that these three dimensionless constants arose in my model, then please provide another model that incidentally does the same thing so you can demonstrate the non-uniqueness.

[Anonymous No.10126090]

>>10126087
https://archive.is/DTvMt

[Anonymous No.10126093]

>>10126089
Being reproducible doesn't mean it's right.

For one, why should the n=1,m=1 eigenvalue the inverse of the fine structure constant?

[The Landlord No.10126096]

>>10126085
>If you can't do everything then what you did is nothing
I predicted from first principles the structure of the standard model of particle physics. To your question, I have not invested much time in QFT yet as I am still filling the gaps in the foundations on which the unsound of house of QFT with its infinite vacuum energy density is built. My research is in the foundations of physics and your question, "What about this thing from the 1970s when you're working on the 1920s?," is stupid and you know it.

[Anonymous No.10126098]

>>10126096
>I predicted from first principles the structure of the standard model of particle physics.
Sure you did.

[The Landlord No.10126100]

>>10126093
That's a good question but it is not the result reported in that paper. The result was that that eigenvalue is equal to the FSC to with 0.4%. Do you dispute the result?

>if you can't do everything then what you did is nothing

t. guy whose theory had already been polished for 80 years before he even started college

[Anonymous No.10126101]

>>10125247
Looking good Jon!

[Anonymous No.10126102]

>>10126100
So your result was that you found an operator with an eigenvalue somewhat close to the inverse of the fine structure constant?

[The Landlord No.10126106]

>>10126098
I sure did. You're right.

[Anonymous No.10126108]

>>10126106
The fact that you think a rigged Hilbert space has anything to do with three generations shows you don't really understand what you're doing.

[Anonymous No.10126110]

By the way, you haven't addressed the fact that you didn't use the actual definition of a limit at infinity:
>>10126068

[The Landlord No.10126139]

>>10126102
That was the main result of one of my papers. The title of it was:
>Derivation of the Fine Structure Constant
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1208.0076

Have you ever found an operator like that? I built my operator on a foundational system of QM: the 2D box. If you can come up with such an operator, please let me know which common physical application motivated the construction.

In this later paper :
>Tempus Edax Rerum
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1209.0010
the main result was that Einstein's equation falls out of the same framework the FSC fell out of. Have you gotten GR and FSC out of the same simple framework? If so, please state which common physical application you used to derive your framework.

[The Landlord No.10126142]

>>10126110
That's because I did use the actual definition. It's right there in the paper, and even as a pic in the thread. The word "diverges" encompasses all of that nuance you cited.

[Anonymous No.10126145]

>>10126142
Fuck off namefag: >>10126117

[The Landlord No.10126146]

>>10126108
What is your mechanism for three generations? Mine is that there are three classes of particles that live in three distinct state spaces, the three spaces comprising the three vector spaces of the rigged Hilbert space.

[Anonymous No.10126148]

>>10126139
The 2D box is about the most physically irrelevant thing to QED that I can imagine.

And your "derivation" of Einstein's equations is taking an equation a = b + c and then giving definitions of a, b, and c that give you the result you want.

[The Landlord No.10126151]

DETRACTORS BTFO
8===d ~~o ~~o :-(

[Anonymous No.10126153]

>>10126146
If you're saying things in the smaller space are, say, electrons, and things in the larger space are, say, taus, then you're saying that electrons are taus. That right there is immediately wrong.

[The Landlord No.10126156]

>>10126148
A Minkowski diagram is a 2D box, and so is any Penrose diagram. How's that for relevance?

[Anonymous No.10126158]

>>10126156
They're 2D diagrams because paper is 2D. They'e literally representations of concepts, not the concepts themselves.

[The Landlord No.10126159]

>>10126153
Your logic does not follow at all and you are stupid.

[Anonymous No.10126164]

>>10126159
lmao, anything in the smallest space is also in the largest space, by construction.

[Anonymous No.10126169]

>>10126142
So you're saying that if I want a precision of 0.1, then you can find me a really large real number X such that if I take sin(x) when x>X, I'll always be within 0.1 of some limiting value?

[Anonymous No.10126191]

Listen faggot, stop fucking up this board, I have access to every image you've posted here: https://boards.fireden.net/_/search/filename/TIMESAND_*/