/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10591202]

RH is solved
Clay lists RH as unsolved
Ergo, solution exists in clown world

[Math Anon > El Arcon No.10591449]

>>10591202
>RH is solved
I know, I solved it.
>Clay lists RH as unsolved
That's what they get for not hanging out in /sci. Silly Clay.

That Timesand guy is really something though. He thinks that there are infinite non trivial solutions, yet can't provide one example. What a joker, I tell ya. He just loves to get people to waste time arguing over fallacies.

[Anonymous No.10591452]

>>10591449
Did they let you out already, John?

[Anonymous No.10591456]

>>10591449
>That Timesand guy

[Anonymous No.10591492]

>>10591452
John's the other guy, I'm Ulysses.

>>10591456
On a side note, what is interesting is that during my research and earlier proof attempts, I had narrowed it down using inverse Fourier transforms. Using that technique, I was able to get to a point where I could show that they were all on the critical line or that there were an infinite number of solutions really close to the line. I'm talking at least 15 decimal places close, like a=.50000000000000001 or whatever. But that turned out to have to do with some artifacts from the trig functions I was using and a limit I was taking, and the method overall wasn't conclusive or refined enough for me to be happy with it.

[Anonymous No.10591497]

>>10591492
Are you a genius? Why hasn’t this been accepted by the mathematical community at large?

[Anonymous No.10591525]

>>10591497
Genius comes in many forms, and it's really up to others to decide. That said, I've been told I am by a few people, well at least in some ways. As to why it's not accepted yet, it's very new, and hasn't been seen by many people. Sometimes it takes a year or so for papers to start circulating or even reach the right hands. I've only shared it in a few small circles, but plan on extending that this summer when I can do a rewrite, and even improve the explanation more. I'll contact a few key mathematicians and see what they think. In the meantime I have a prominent university nearby. I'll likely take it up there over the next month, and see if any grad students can find errors.

[Anonymous No.10591536]

>>10591202
>>10591449
>>10591492
What are the implications of the riemann hypothesis being false?

[Anonymous No.10591547]

>>10591202
inf-b is not real, otherwise the primes would not be infinite. Try again.

[Anonymous No.10591560]

>>10591536
The RH was stated more like show all the zeros have real part of 1/2 or show one that doesn't. So it's not really "true or false" in that sense, but rather people associate True with them all being a=1/2 which was Riemann's suspicion, and False being another zero with different a in the critical domain. My proof agrees with Riemann, saying it's true.

However, the implications if it were false, would be the opposite of if it were true. And before you go all captain obvious on me on that one, I'm saying that the RH is connected to 20 plus other problems in math. So proving it true, will instantly confirm all those, or oppositely proving it false would have all those implications as well.

[Anonymous No.10591571]

The riemann hypothesis as as stated, talks about the riemann zeta function which is defined in all the complex numbers but not in the extended complex numbers/riemann sphere or whatever.

[ECHS^Rainbow_Hive_Dream No.10592279]

I am fairly curious. What implications are there if one german mathematician figured out all useful real parts of half mathematics?

Personally all these "muh sequence means muh smurter" seems like a frustrating attempt to exchange one person's description of 'deep counting' for 'everyone should reference me, but just through money. Use my papers and leave me alone.'

Is mathematics not just kicking those with the most creative silence until they do something worthwhile?

[Anonymous No.10592405]

>>10591547
You should support your claim with evidence, or make an argument or something

>>10591492
>I'm Ulysses.
Where is the link to your paper?

[Anonymous No.10592468]

>>10592405
>You should support your claim with evidence, or make an argument or something
The argument is clear, what don't you understand about it?

[Anonymous No.10592550]

i made the pdf for Math Anon’s paper and after i read it i thought there was a very big hole in the proof where instead of writing equations there is like some gibberish paragraph of text. sorry math anon

[Anonymous No.10593404]

>>10591202
Let n be an integer such that n > inf-1

Then n+1 > inf

This is impossible, so n must be an upper bound for the integers or n < inf-1 for all n and floor(inf-1) is an upper bound for the integers. Thus the number of primes must be less than n or less than floor(inf-1). But since there are infinite primes this is impossible and inf-b cannot must not be real.

[Anonymous No.10594061]

>>10592468
>what don't you understand about it?
why do you say its not real?

>>10593404
>Let n be an integer such that n > inf-1
first you have to prove that such an integer exists. I have proven that no such integer exists.

[Anonymous No.10594135]

>>10594061
>first you have to prove that such an integer exists.
This either indicates you did not read my post or you are incapable of understanding basic math. If n exists then it is the upper bound, if n doesn't exist then floor(inf-1) is.

[Anonymous No.10594167]

N
O
G
J
E
W

[Anonymous No.10594298]

>>10594135
if "n" doesn't have an upper bound, then why would "inf - n" have a lower bound?

[Anonymous No.10594332]

>>10594298
>if "n" doesn't have an upper bound
What do you mean? m had itself as an upper bound. n can only be one value or not exist if inf-1 is taken as a real number.

[Anonymous No.10594402]

[Anonymous No.10594454]

>>10594402
So no argument then, thanks for admitting your proof fails at the first step.

[Hiren No.10595427]

I can explain it as below.
n > inf-1

For more, you can get reference:
https://www.johnpatel.com/tools/decimal-to-hex-converter/

[Hiren No.10595429]

[url=https://www.johnpatel.com/tools/decimal-to-hex-converter/]Decimal to Hex[/url]

[Anonymous No.10595771]

>>10591560
keep going with the article

[Anonymous No.10596016]

[Anonymous No.10596078]

>>10591560
Why didn't anyone tell me that functional analysis is just the study of the algebraic properties of transcendental numbers?

[Anonymous No.10596314]