RH thread

[Anonymous No.10605872]

RH thread
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function#Globally_convergent_series

[Anonymous No.10605885]

le infinity hat

[Anonymous No.10605934]

>>10605872
What’s the minimum IQ needed to solve this? If I work really hard do you think I could do it /sci/?

[Anonymous No.10606058]

Hey James Ragelin-Bogdanoff. If Hitler had soldiers like you then no wonder he couldn't defeat his enemies. You are filthy trash and I'm going to put you in the filthy trash hole.

[Anonymous No.10606070]

>>10606058
Wat

[Anonymous No.10606111]

>>10606070
the filthy trash hole
you don't know who you fucking with nigga

[Anonymous No.10606161]

>>10606058
Impressive, did you quote that from your PhD?

[Anonymous No.10606169]

>>10605872
If inf-b is real then it bounds the integers. If the integers are bounded by a real then there are finite primes. Contradiction, thus inf-b is not real.

[Anonymous No.10606175]

>>10606169
Nice claim you have there. Try proving it.

>>10606161
I'm not impressed. Are those children in the group you were trying to keep safe?

[Anonymous No.10606188]

>>10606175
If n=ceiling(inf-1) is an integer then it is the largest integer. Otherwise n=floor(inf-1). But this means there can be no more than n primes, which contradicts the fact that there are infinite primes. QED.

[Anonymous No.10606206]

>>10606188
I don't think the floor and ceiling functions say very much about constants like "inf-1." For any constant C we have
floor(C)=ceiling(C)

>>10606161
Were those children's parents trusting you with their children's well-being?

[Anonymous No.10606211]

>>10606206
>I don't think the floor and ceiling functions say very much about constants like "inf-1." For any constant C we have
floor(C)=ceiling(C)
floor(1.5) =/= ceiling(1.5)

[Anonymous No.10606216]

>>10606206
Then inf-1 is the largest integer and there are finite primes. Contradiction, thus inf-b is not real.

[Anonymous No.10606217]

>>10606206
>For any constant C we have floor(C)=ceiling(C)
What in the fuck did Jon Tooker mean by this

[Anonymous No.10606230]

>>10606211
I have googled the floor and ceiling functions and I see that my claim floor(C)=ceiling(C) was completely wrong.

Now my criticism of your stupid comment is this: floor(inf-1) = DNE. If you think DNE is wrong, then prove it exists.

[Anonymous No.10606236]

>>10606216
inf-1 does not conform to the definition of an integer. If you disagree, then make a proof

>>10606217
I meant that floor(x)=inf(x) and ceiling(x)=sup(x) which is wrong as I now freely acknowledge. yes, for the ten hundredth millionth time in my life, I was wrong about something.

[Anonymous No.10606238]

>>10606217
better ask, "What does the Sovereign Lord God mean by all this centipede stuff?"

[Anonymous No.10606241]

>>10606206
>Nigger Tooker argues that inf - b is totally valid
>inf - b can be plugged into Zeta
>inf - b doesn't break the Archimedean property
>but floor and ceil don't work since they immediately disprove his shit

[Anonymous No.10606244]

>>10606241
floor(inf-1) = DNE

[Anonymous No.10606245]

>>10606241
and my face is still attached to my skull so who's the real nigger?

[Anonymous No.10606248]

>>10606230
>floor(inf-1) = DNE.
Then inf-1 is not a real number. Congrats moron.

[Anonymous No.10606251]

>>10606236
>inf-1 does not conform to the definition of an integer.
You just says it did when you said ceiling(inf-1) = floor(inf-1). Make up your mind schizo.

[Anonymous No.10606252]

>>10606236
>inf-1 does not conform to the definition of an integer.
one step closer to making him admit that inf-1 does not conform to the definition of a real number either

[Anonymous No.10606262]

>>10606248
Nice claim you have there. Try proving it.

>>10606252
>conform to the definition of a real number
( -inf , inf ) = (-inf , inf-b) U [inf-b, inf)
therefore "inf-b" is a real number.

Wow you guys don't think about centipedes and those people who put their trust in you. Haha, I will show them what they get for putting their trust in someone other than me.

[Anonymous No.10606268]

>>10606262
you wouldnt know a proof if it threw you out of the abandoned houses you break into

[Anonymous No.10606274]

>>10606262
>Nice claim you have there. Try proving it.
What is an integer?

>( -inf , inf ) = (-inf , inf-b) U [inf-b, inf)
This assumes that inf-b is a real number in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10606281]

>>10606268
Do you see a flaw in OP proof?

>>10606274
>This assumes that inf-b is a real number in the first place.
Wrong! If x is a real number then
( -inf , inf ) = (-inf , x ) U [ x , inf )

Therefore, "inf-b" is a real number because
( -inf , inf ) = (-inf , inf - b ) U [ inf - b , inf )

[Anonymous No.10606292]

>>10606262
Let inf-1 be a real number. By the Archimedean property there is a natural number n > inf-1. By the same property they're is a natural number m >= n+1 > inf. But a natural number cannot be greater than inf. Thus inf-1 is not a real number.

[Anonymous No.10606299]

>>10606281
>Therefore, "inf-b" is a real number because
>( -inf , inf ) = (-inf , inf - b ) U [ inf - b , inf )
This is only true if inf-b is real. Otherwise it's just gibberish.

( -inf , inf ) = (-inf , a cat ) U [ a cat , inf )

Therefore a cat is a real number.

[Anonymous No.10606304]

>>10606281
What is an integer?

[Anonymous No.10606315]

>>10606292
>By the Archimedean property there is a natural number n > inf-1.
This is wrong. Whose statement of the AP are you using? Obviously it isn't Euclid who made no mention of natural numbers.

>>10606299
Have you defined the ordering of cat like I have defined the ordering of "inf-b?" If so, and if
-inf < cat < inf

then I will happily concede that cat is a real number.

>>10606304
An integer, in my understanding, is either zero or it is a positive or negative natural number. There might be better a definition but usually we write
Z = {0} U {+/- N}

[Anonymous No.10606335]

John Brennan is about to be indicted for plot against Trump, prepare for violence, says fmr CIA officer
https://beforeitsnews.com/v3/opinion-conservative/2019/3452871.html
>prepare for violence

[Anonymous No.10606865]

>>10605885
I recognize that face...

[Anonymous No.10607079]

>>10606206
Ew what the fuck, fuck you

[Anonymous No.10607147]

>>10606315
Man you’re a real dense fucker aren’t you

[Anonymous No.10608221]

>>10606315
Jon, the integers are better defined as the closure of the natural numbers under addition and subtraction, or equally, the addition of an inverse element for every natural number. Also, the definition of the set of natural numbers differs between sources; some include 0 and some do not. As for the natural numbers, they can be defined using the successor function. Note that the same properties relating to the successor function apply to reals because real numbers can be defined as the set of unique limits of cauchy sequences of rationals, which can in turn be defined as the closure of the integers with respect to division (equally, the addition of an inverse with respect to multiplication followed by closure under multiplication). This means that inf - 1 + 1 = inf should also be a real, because the reals are closed under addition.

[Anonymous No.10608631]

>>10606169
Finiteness and boundedness are equivalent for the natural numbers, so if inf-hat is natural and a upper bound for the naturals then the naturals form a finite set. The Archimedean propriety plua well ordering are funny like that.

[Anonymous No.10608809]

>>10608221
Notorious infidel, you are assigning the properties of the real number field R to the real numbers R. The real number field R is three things: the real numbers R, the plus operator, and the times operator. Often, when richer fonts are available we write
R = ( R, +, x )

I think you stupid as fuck, and you are pretending to be even stupider than you actually are by feigning ignorance about the difference between R the field and the R the numbers.

>>10608631
>Finiteness and boundedness are equivalent for the natural numbers
Nice claim you have there, Try proving it.

[Anonymous No.10609338]

>>10605934
>What’s the minimum IQ needed to solve this?
[math]-\infty[/math]. Because you could imagine someone who can solve the RH but do nothing more. But of course someone who shitposts about IQ wouldn't understand that.

[Anonymous No.10609381]

>>10608809
*sigh* the Riemann hypothesis concerns the real number field... not sure what you're misunderstanding here

[Anonymous No.10609414]

>>10609381
Number fields had not yet been formulated in 1858. You're gonna find it hard to sigh later in the death camp so you ought to shut the fuck up about it in the meantime. Maybe you'll die on your first day there but maybe it will take a long time.

[Anonymous No.10609826]

>>10609414
Upload a picture of your dick again. That'll show him

[Anonymous No.10610143]

>>10609414
>addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division acting on numbers had not yet been formulated in 1858
lolwhat? there's a difference between having a name and existing. Do I have to upload the flowchart again?

[Anonymous No.10610439]

>>10609826
bumping for tooker's dick, i need this in my life

[Anonymous No.10610539]

>>10610439
worksafe in pic
nsfw in link
https://imgur.com/a/Fyd8QEp

>>10610143
You have attempted to paraphrase me but you have failed to do so by omitting the property that fields are closed under the operations you mention.

[Anonymous No.10610544]

>>10610539
He actually posted, the absolute madman. I'd suck you, but you're terrible at math and physics so sorry.

[Anonymous No.10611061]

>>10610539
everyone in the 1800s expected that when you add two real numbers you get a real number, and when you multiply two real numbers you get a real number. Are you really gonna insist otherwise? That means that even the implication x + y = a => x = a - y fails in general, something I'm sure would surprise any 18th-century mathematician.
As I said way earlier back in the days of the flowchart, if certain sums are undefined you must prove every time you add two numbers that the sum is defined, or else your proof fails.