/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10501757]

Will Riemann hypothesis ever be solved?

[Anonymous No.10501763]

It was

[Anonymous No.10501764]

Look up Jonathan W. Tooker

[Anonymous No.10501769]

>>10501764
literally this

[Anonymous No.10501781]

>>10501763
>>10501764
>>10501769
Then why didn’t he get million bucks for solving it?

[Anonymous No.10501787]

>>10501781
Maybe he declined it, like the solver of the poincaré conjecture did

[Anonymous No.10501788]

>>10501781
Global math conspiracy against him. He clearly solved it and his proof is 100% legit, so there is no other explanation.

[Anonymous No.10501795]

>>10501781
Why is royal rife hidden from the public? Why aren't the dangers of wi-fi signals exposed by the media? Why do people keep drinking tap water full of chemicals? You learn pretty quickly that in this world the truth rarely prevails.

[Anonymous No.10501820]

>>10501795
Yummy bait

[Anonymous No.10501932]

>>10501781
The solver has already passed on.

[Anonymous No.10501966]

>>10501757

No

[Anonymous No.10502103]

>>10501757
Probably.
Some people are trying via
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93P%C3%B3lya_conjecture..

Michael Berry and Carl Bender have already contributed to QM/optics. Carl's PT symmetry has given some new life QM since it allows QM to make sense for some non-Hermitian operators.

[Anonymous No.10502203]

>>10501787
>Maybe he declined it,
nah

>>10501788
>Global math conspiracy against him.
Yes, no kidding. My first disproof of RH has now gone unchallenged for two years:
On The Riemann Zeta Function
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

To award me the money, Clay Institute would have to issue to me the same waiver that Perelman got for publishing in a non-peer-reviewed venue. The Millennium Prize rules say it has to be peer-reviewed to qualify for the money, so please note very well that the waiver they gave Perelman is the same one (the exact same one in every way) that they would have to give me for also publishing in a non-peer-reviewed venue.

[Anonymous No.10502225]

>>10501788
>there is no other explanation.
I can think of other causes than a conspiracy of academics. I could be totally segregated from the academic community by a government conspiracy to shadowban my posts and/or move me via kidnapping to a detention location which looks and feels like Atlanta, GA but which would not have the latitude, longitude, and elevation coordinates normally associated with Atlanta, GA. (This would be in Area 51, the Syria-Iraq border region, maybe a barge in the Pacific, maybe a cavern in the Antarctic ice etc...)

Think about it... how hard would it be to give me a fake laptop that makes me think I'm on the real internet but is actually just a censorship bubble put together by the people who obviously don't care about their well-being or that of their children? It would not be hard at all. In fact, it would be totally easy for an agency like the CIA, FBI, or NSA, or even a cult like Nexium or Scientology, to totally ban me from the internet. How would I know? I have no way to check?

I am frequently astonished by the total, flawless, perfect, 100% unanimity of the global math-physics-internet community regarding anyone ever praising me by name in public. Usually, no matter how much a crank idea some ridiculous notion is, there will be some nutjobs out there who will subscribe to it. Where are my nutjobs? Where is the dissent? Things are looking up lately with people mentioning my second RH disproof which I put together in 2018 after already solving the problem in another 2017 paper.

How could it be that the entire world community has all banded together to deny me ever receiving any public praise for my contributions? I think it is easier for me to believe that I have been put into a censorship bubble by some people whose bloodlines will soon end than it it is for me to believe that thousands or tens of thousands of honest academics the world over have conspired ~unanimously~ to fuck me over.

[Anonymous No.10502236]

>>10502203
>My first disproof
who are you?

[Anonymous No.10502244]

Look at this stupid pic related frog. It became a meme right after I used those colors on the cover of my book.

Right after I posted my RH solution on 4chan, it was in the news that some 4chan user had solved an important problem about sort/search.
>https://www.rt.com/news/442388-4chan-solution-math-problem/
I noticed that for this sort problem, the guy had been put to show that there was no better way and then he showed there was. Likewise with RH disproof, everyone was trying to show that RH was true but I showed that it isn't.

I've been in jail for most of 2019. When I got out there was a mosque shooting. The conspiracy crowd is citing the blue sock in the video, and when I sorted through my stuff after getting out of jail, lo and behold, I had an extra blue sock.

[Anonymous No.10502251]

>>10502236
>Not knowing who Jonathan Warren Tooker is
You have to go back.

[Anonymous No.10502254]

>>10502236
>>10502236
I'm the author of that paper, Jonathan W. Tooker.

In 2017, I proved that there are non-trivial zeros off the critical line. In 2018, pic related, I found the exact zeros and used them to show that zeta does have the non-trivial zeros whose existence I had already demonstrated the year before.

Real Numbers in the Neighborhood of Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1811.0222

[Anonymous No.10502258]

>>10502203
>unchallenged
lmao are you fucking serious? Nobody here has ever challenged you?

[Anonymous No.10502264]

>>10502203
>>10502225
>>10502244
>this reddit spaced stream of conscious blogpost style of writing
I can't imagine why anyone would ignore your schizo ass on principle. You really need to learn to edit yourself my man. Maybe you're right, but no one has the kind of time in their life to waste sifting through the belabored shitpile of your posts to figure it out.
Brevity is the sole of wit.

[Anonymous No.10502272]

>>10502244
I'm Tooker. Gedalia Gershon is my Hebrew name.

>>10502258
I meant, "After two years of criticism, no one has shown a critical error which leaves RH as an unsolved problem."

[Anonymous No.10502284]

>>10502264
>no one has the kind of time in their life to waste sifting through
a single page???

[Anonymous No.10502286]

>>10502244
>>10502225
>>10502203
jannies need to ban schizo posting.

[Anonymous No.10502298]

>>10502286
I know you're one of them. The janitors won't ban me, here my mathematical contributions are recognized.

[Anonymous No.10502309]

>>10502298
>here
>in public

[Anonymous No.10502320]

How can such intelligent mathematicians be completely fucking schizo at the same time?

However, can someone disprove Jonathan? No? Then he's right

[Anonymous No.10502360]

>>10502225
>I think it is easier for me to believe that I have been put into a censorship bubble by some people whose bloodlines will soon end than it it is for me to believe that thousands or tens of thousands of honest academics the world over have conspired ~unanimously~ to fuck me over.

Greetings from Norway, Jonathan. I do not have the mathematical background to comment on your papers. I wish you the best, and hope this situation will resolve soon :)

[Anonymous No.10502387]

>>10502360
Thanks. You Norway guys seem like you are planting a good amount of trees. Keep up the good work.

[Anonymous No.10502402]

>>10502225
Brazilians here. When I get to the level where I can understand what's written in there, then I'll judge if it's correct or not. Until then, I'll remain silent.
Just know that you aren't trapped in a bubble.

[Anonymous No.10502431]

>>10502402
>Just know that you aren't trapped in a bubble.
What is this bullshit then? Here I am in the mount position and I have been staring at the ref like this for about 10 years but he still didn't throw his four fingers in the air.

I'm not in a bubble and there's literally only one person on Earth besides me who wanted to buy my book? If it's not a bubble, it's some kind of bullshit, fren ;)

[Anonymous No.10502487]

>>10502431
>for about 10 years
Modified Spacetime Geometry Addresses Dark Energy, Penrose's Entropy Dilemma, Baryon Asymmetry, Inflation and Matter Anisotropy
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0022

[Anonymous No.10502492]

I mean, how does pic related happen if I'm not in a fucking bubble?

arXiv rejected my paper
Real Numbers in the Neighborhood of Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1811.0222
citing a lack of scholarly content. Fuck off with that bullshit. There's dozens of proofs of RH on arXiv right nwo, all of them wrong as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10502531]

>>10502492
>There's dozens of proofs of RH on arXiv right nwo, all of them wrong as fuck.
but none of them are as wrong as your disproof is

[Anonymous No.10502538]

Tooker is a joke.

His other papers include a "Truth about Evolution"
http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0132v2.pdf
One of the pillars it stands on is an argument against the accepted belief in "junk DNA" in the genomes of living beings. Some quotes on junk DNA from the paper:
>Scientists do not yet understand the genome and there is no reason to think what they have defined as coding for a protein should be the definitive consideration in genetics.
>Please appreciate how inane it would be for the field of genetics to invent itself and just a few decades later declare junk the part of the genome which remains mysterious. It is true that DNA in plasmids and telomeres (and such) may be junk, but it is much more important that we don’t know for sure."
>Why do people think there is junk DNA?

Now, please appreciate how much of a hack he is when he feels confident enough to publish papers claiming to disprove evolution and Darwinism when he won't even take the time to learn anything about it. We already have great reason to believe that junk DNA is truly junk and codes for nothing useful but Tooker despite asking the question himself didn't even research it before going public.

The ENCODE project is pretty much the authority on junk DNA and it supports its existence. One of the best pieces of evidence for junk DNA is in mobile elements. These pieces of junk solely replicate themselves to a random spot elsewhere on the genome. These are quite common and you can imagine the damage caused by a mobile element jumping into a functioning gene and fucking shit up. Luckily there's enough junk DNA around that they rarely cause problems. Over time our junk DNA grows as mobile elements hop in and stick around. (1/2)

[Anonymous No.10502550]

>>10502538
A full 10% of human DNA is a million copies of this DNA segment whose only product is the creation of this segment elsewhere in the genome
GGCCGGGCGCGGTGGCTCACGCCTGTAATCCCAGCACTTTGGGAGGCCGAGGCGGGCGGATCACCTGAGGTCAGGAGTTCGAGACCACCTGGCCAACATGGTGAAACCCCGTCTCTACTAAAAATACAAAAATTAGCCGGGCGTGGTGGCGCGCGCCTGTAATCCCAGCTACTCGGGAGGCTGAGGCAGGAGAATCGCTTGAACCCGGGAGGCGGAGGTTGCAGTGAGCCGAGATCGCGCCAGCTGCACTCCAGCCTGGGCGACAGAGCGAGACTCCGTCTCAAAAAA

phew

I don't really understand maths enough to disprove his Riemann shit, but I'm highly doubtful that the reason he's not super successful is that there's some conspiracy against him and not that he's just not shit
(2/2)

[Anonymous No.10502574]

>>10502550
based and thank you

[Anonymous No.10502633]

>>10502550
>some conspiracy against him
baby is me

[Anonymous No.10502721]

I solved that in like high school but I didn't use the putnam for proof and I don't have the expertise to create notation to you. The reality is..

the problem persists into the nature of philosophy after taking off from the room with the physicians in it, then the reporter I mean the cop...erm...the pundit...relieves himself into the room of the nearest person with the highest score on an SAT somewhere, and then they relieve themselves into her. That gives them power by their majesty and in the wake of it they become a new norm. That means that relief is pressed into the room and the physics does not allow numbers. Only constants. That they have no constants is why she is beheaded or removed and the diamonds stolen instead. That is all mafia shit in coursework. Lay off them, they cry a lot and drink non-stop so it hurts if they haven't been drinking. I drink Monin to help myself.

[Anonymous No.10502742]

>>10502203
>street address listed as "Occupy an Obstinate Refusal to Conform"
>claiming to solve the Banach-Tarski paradox when it's only an unintuitive property of infinite objects and not actually an unsolved problem
>using uncredited graphics from the "how to turn a sphere inside out" YouTube video
>defining things like 1/0 and infinitesimals
>all citations are self
gee, I wonder why nobody paid attention to your paper?

[Anonymous No.10502776]

>>10502742
>not actually an unsolved problem
Only solved since I solved it. Paradox says one sphere is equal to two spheres. Explain how 1=2 is not a paradox.

>>10502742
>I wonder why nobody paid
Is it because they are stupid, closed-minded, and jelly af?

[Anonymous No.10502792]

>>10502272
>After two years of criticism, no one has shown a critical error which leaves RH as an unsolved problem.
You’re delusional my dude. You completely misunderstand infinity and the reals, and often get btfo in these threads but you choose to ignore your own poor grasp of mathematics. Your “”paper”” is a joke on this board, and completely unknown elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.10502808]

>>10502792
>Your “”paper”” is a joke on this board, and completely unknown elsewhere.
like your bloodline then

[Anonymous No.10503057]

What the fuck is a number in the neighbourhood of infinity?

[Anonymous No.10503074]

>>10503057
your moms weight

[Anonymous No.10503081]

>>10501795
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.10503127]

>>10503057

[Anonymous No.10503165]

>>10503127
Alright, ill bite.

When you say X in AB, what is the set AB?

Also, what is D_{AB}(AX) > 0 in your definition of neighborhoods of infinity? I understood the x in the interval [a,b] part but much else.

[Anonymous No.10503174]

>>10503165
this paper about AB is not finished yet but you all are bout to finna get "D_ABbed" on when it's done

finished paper here:
Real Numbers in the Neighborhood of Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1811.0222

[Anonymous No.10503194]

>>10503174
tooker died m8
eliminated by the cia for his work

[Anonymous No.10503205]

>>10502254
Know any math professors around? They might be able to help you.

[Anonymous No.10503226]

>>10503194
You know... from 2015-2016 i worked at Lexis Nexis which is a mega data-aggregator that sells insurance to businesses by letting them investigate their counterparties... and to do any of a million other things with the data they collect. During the orientation when i was first hired, Scientologist Bob "Sage" Foreman (Mr. Double B 4-man) intimated to me that Lexis Nexis maintains a table of deceased individuals AND that they had entered my name into that table. He told me that, kinda, in 2015.

He said, by way of unaccountable intimations that I can't be certain weren't totally in my imagination, that once a name is entered into the death table, it cannot be removed.

[Anonymous No.10503233]

>>10503226
Anyway... I'll enjoy standing on top of a mountain of the corpses of my enemies just the same if my name has a row in their gay table or not.

[Anonymous No.10503254]

>>10503174
Alright, I decided to actually read your paper despite it's reputation around here. I'm still going through it, but I noticed that in definition 4.2, the second to last line says:

(InfHat - b) < Inf for all b in R_0

Adding b to both sides,

(InfHat - b) + b < Inf + b

Cancelling b on the left side and absorbing b into Inf

InfHat < Inf

Which contradicts your definition 3.3 that

InfHat = Inf

I think I kinda understand the idea you're trying to express with InfHat, but I think it's just going to lead to contradictions unless you remove the hat any time you operate on it.

[Anonymous No.10503259]

>>10503174
Actually I just noticed that you also wrote

InfHat + 0 = undefined

Which I suppose would mean that

InfHat - b + b = InfHat + 0 = undefined

Which is still a contradiction since you gave a definition of infinity.

[Anonymous No.10503279]

>>10503254
In Definition 4.1 it says that for R-hat numbers, "b" is greater than zero. Definition 4.2 is about the ordering of R-hat numbers. When you put "+b" and "-b" together that like setting "b=0" which is not allowed.

Where it says in the second to last line "for any b in R_0," that is in reference to R-hat numbers. I could have written "b>0" about a dozen more times but it is clear that Def 4.2 is about R-hat numbers, and that requires "b>0." Regarding the alleged contradiction you cited, Inf-hat is not an R-hat number and that ordering doesn't apply to it. There is no contradiction but thank you for your feedback.

I think your error is that you were considering random combinations of Inf-hat and "b" when Def 4.2 is only about R-hat numbers which have constraints on how Inf-hat and "b" can be paired. Since I use the "forall" symbol, it kind of makes sense that you thought to consider random combinations of Inf-hat and "b" but the definition clearly is in reference only to R-hat numbers.

[Anonymous No.10503285]

>>10503259
>Which is still a contradiction since you gave a definition of infinity.
this is wrong and it is stupid compared to your first criticism which was pretty good.

[Anonymous No.10503299]

>>10503279
I suppose with the restriction b>0, you're right about neither case I gave being a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.10503306]

>Posting your RH proof on 4Chan and expecting it to be disproven.

While you're at it you might as well break down all the advanced concepts you used that 99% of the people here don't understand. Being esoteric is not the same as being correct.

[Anonymous No.10503308]

>>10503299
I agree and thank you for your reasonable assessment.

>>10503306
>advanced concepts
so advanced. wow.

Where the fuck is my $1M???
Go ahead and buy my book now before I get famous and jack up the price.
amazon com/Weather-Vane-Gedalia-Gershon/dp/1723762806/

[Anonymous No.10503317]

>>10503306
>Being esoteric
I mentioned that they "solved the sort problem on 4chan" right after I posted my 2018 RH disproof.

After I disproved RH in 2017, again there was a simultaneous math paper in the news: a proof of RH no less! I encourage everyone to have a look and see if they think it's absolute dog shit compared to my nice paper.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03679


Pic from here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-physicists-attack-the-riemann-hypothesis-20170404/

[Anonymous No.10503349]

>>10503308
I finished reading your paper.

Its actually pretty interesting how you split the real numbers by removing the additive identity property of infinity.

[Anonymous No.10503353]

>>10503349

It's bogus. There's no such thing as adding numbers to infinity. Infinity is not a number that you can add to, it's just a concept of a limit that diverges. The guy is a lunatic

[Anonymous No.10503361]

>>10503353
My gut tells me that it probably is bogus, but it was interesting regardless. And you can add numbers to infinity in the affinely extended real numbers, which he uses throughout the paper.

[Anonymous No.10503365]

>>10503349
Thanks, I hope good things happen to you.

>>10503353
Not you though. I don't want that for you.

[Anonymous No.10503378]

>>10503361

But those still aren't real numbers per se. If his proof was correct, you should actually be able to find one of those zeroes. But you can't because he's dealing with infinity, and these zeroes don't actually exist.

[Anonymous No.10503389]

Someone redpill me on the schizo

Is he right, in jail, a hack, dead, a genius, lunatic, time traveller, tranny, deluded? Wtf is he on about

[Anonymous No.10503398]

>>10502254
and the area of what constitute did you determine for manifold of there are no real numbers to pursue? Its just nigger fucking.

[Anonymous No.10503399]

>>10503389
the redpill is that hes your brother and he made his own fortune. There is no oblique point on my watch. these are my boys. See how well i do this. we all know it.

[Anonymous No.10503420]

>>10503399
>hes your brother
King of Babylon
Whore of Babylon

[Anonymous No.10503431]

>I can prove that zeta is zero if I choose a number that behaves exactly like a negative real number
Wow.............

[Anonymous No.10504250]

Isn't he abusing the hyperreals here? I know the hyperreals are consistent iff the reals are consistent, but using a number that is larger than any constructible real number seems like you've moved outside of the real numbers and into the hyperreals. So maybe RH doesn't hold on the hyperreals, but that doesn't seem like it necessarily indicate it doesnt hold for reals/complex numbers.

[Anonymous No.10504265]

>>10502254
>I'm the author of that paper, Jonathan W. Tooker.
A.K.A. the idiot that don't know how to make limits

[Anonymous No.10504269]

>>10502633
>baby is me
You forgot to post your relation with Hitler

[Anonymous No.10504391]

>>10504265
If you think that limit isn't equal to one, or that allowing inf\inf=1 in that case is invalid, then please be more specific. I am quite certain I calculated the correct limit.

>>10504269
>relation with Hitler
We certainly don't look alike but I have no idea if or how we might be related. I do remember my grandmother Anne, however.

[Anonymous No.10504395]

>>10504265

[Anonymous No.10504412]

>>10504391
>allowing inf\inf=1 in that case is invalid,
Yes, it is invalid.

>I have no idea if or how we might be related
Then, why posting that image?

[Anonymous No.10504464]

>>10504391
>don't look alike
we do I mean

>>10504412
>why
Why not kill yourself?

>>10504412
If it was invalid then it would have given the wrong answer. Since it gives the right answer, it is valid. As I mentioned the last 50 times you raised this stupid criticism, it always gives the right answer for the linear case, and it is always valid in the linear case.

Please say whether or not you believe that limit is equal to one as I have shown it to be.

[Anonymous No.10504584]

>>10502550
>I really don't understand maths enough to disprove this Riemann shit.

I'll volunteer. Let's step through his gut-bustingly hilarious paper (http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1811.0222v5.pdf)) one step at a time:

Definition 1.1 is weird and is actually identical in substance to Definition 1.3, which is really a theorem. Definition 1.2 is more of a notational note. They are all strange, imprecise, and use the wrong descriptors (Definition 1.3 and 1.1 being theorems/lemmas/whathaveyou) and are indicative of the fact that he has not done serious mathematics before.

Definition 1.4 is where things start to get funny, and states:

Call real numbers in the neighborhood of the origin [math]x \in \mathbb{R}_0[/math]. Define them such that [math]x \in \mathbb{R}_0 \iff x \in \mathbb{R}[/math] and [math]-n<x<n[\math] for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$.

The first thing you will realize about this definition is that, since ALL real numbers satisfy this definition via the archimedean property, that [math]\mathbb{R}_0 = \mathbb{R}[/math]; but he still thinks they are different things.

Then, Definition 1.5 states:

Call real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity [math]\mathbb{R}_{\infty}[/math]. Define them as all real numbers except for real numbers in the neighborhood of the origin: [math]\mathbb{R}_{\infty} = \mathbb{R}\\mathbb{R}_{0}[/math].

You will immediately realize from the above that this set is irrefutably empty. Then the next remark:

Remark. The main result of this paper demonstrates that [math]\mathbb{R}_{\infty}[/math] is not an empty set.

This provably ass-wrong statement is enough empirical evidence to conclude that he cannot reason seriously about mathematics and that his further opinions on difficult mathematical problems are a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.10504587]

>>10501757
>solved

[Anonymous No.10504598]

>>10504587
epic

[Anonymous No.10504600]

>>10504250
No, it is not even that complicated. Read definitions 1.1-1.4, and you will immediately realize that he is totally retarded. He defines an empty set called the "neighborhood of the origin"(the set of all reals for which there exists an integer greater than it's absolute value, which is literally all of them by the archimedean property) and then defines sets in the "neighborhood of infinity" by taking the complement of the "neighborhood of the origin" (which we know is just the real numbers) inside the real numbers, i.e. the empty set, and then literally remarks immediately afterwards that this provably empty set is going to be shown to be non-empty. Literally a freshman undergrad in math would see it immediately.

[Anonymous No.10504603]

>>10504600
Yes I abused literally for emphasis

[Anonymous No.10504609]

>>10504587
did it in two

[Anonymous No.10504613]

>>10503389

A hack and a retard, see>>10504600

[Anonymous No.10504618]

>>10504587
did it in two

[Anonymous No.10504621]

>>10504587
these are lines in curved geometry, just ask einstein lmao

[Anonymous No.10504656]

>>10504250
umm for lying about the criminal nature of law, btw you two were divorced, the nature is assumed bomb making criminal. marshalls of the law will know your face and you will face reprimand. That is my wet ware on work to you.

[Anonymous No.10504732]

>>10504587
Ez.