The Requirements on the Non-trivial Roots of the Riemann Zeta

[Math Anon No.10999438]

Hello, So I posted my attempted Riemann Hypothesis Proof earlier in January.
Overall, the concept was sound, and at least among the few people who have since reviewed it.
However, I eventually did ferret out an error, not in the overall approach, but in one of the sub-sections, the old section 5.
The claim in that section was correct, but my method for showing it contained a sign error and therefore was wrong.
This version fixes that by instead using a more rigorous and clear approach to that portion.
Not only that, but it also addressed multiple formatting, readability, explanatory, and quality of life improvements.
This version is much cleaner, more succinct, and down from 14 or 15 pages to 11.

[Anonymous No.10999441]

page 2.

[Anonymous No.10999444]

page 3.

[Anonymous No.10999448]

page 4.

[Anonymous No.10999454]

page 5.

[Anonymous No.10999463]

Here's page 6, need to do something real quick, brb with the second half.

[Anonymous No.10999469]

Sorry hunny, but Atlanta, Georgia mathematician and physicist Jonathan Tooker already disproved RH.

[Math Anon No.10999521]

>>10999469
heheh, Tooker proved that hyper-reals need more attention, as well as describing certain limits at infinity, but his RH dis-proof is timesand.
Here's page 7.

[Anonymous No.10999528]

Tooker is a faggot

[Anonymous No.10999552]

>>10999448
When you split the sums into even and odd parts, you are losing convergence for a<=1

[Anonymous No.10999559]

>>10999521
No, the only thing Tooker proved was his schizophrenia. The fact that you don't see any issue with any of Tooker's papers tells me that your math is too weak to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.10999564]

>>10999552
Good thing the sum of sums is taken as a whole.
>>10999559
lol, I'm one of the ones who disproved his disproof. The fact that you don't see potential in Tooker's timesand tells me your opinion of my math is too weak to be taken seriously.

Oh, here's page 8.

[Anonymous No.10999617]

page 9.

[Anonymous No.10999885]

page 10.

[Anonymous No.11000000]

Page 11.
And therefore, a = 1/2 and only 1/2.

[Anonymous No.11000023]

That's a lot of pages, anon, can we get a quick summary of the proof strategy?

[Anonymous No.11000038]

>>11000000
>page 11
>final page
>11 mil get

your proof must be correct, god wills it so.

[Anonymous No.11000046]

following this thread

[Anonymous No.11000048]

>>11000038

He only found a few zeroes, he didn't find all of them.

[Anonymous No.11000057]

>>10999441
Shouldn't a change in exponent from
n - 1
to
n + 1

necessitate a change in lower index of the summation
from 1 to -1 ?

[Anonymous No.11000059]

Way too elementary to be correct. I'm sorry, but if you actually believe your proof is right you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.11000066]

>>11000059
>Way too elementary to be correct.
brainlet

[Anonymous No.11000072]

>>11000066
If there had been an elementary proof of RH possible, it would have been found over 100 years ago, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11000075]

>>11000072
seething inkwell

[Anonymous No.11000089]

>>11000075
Incel? Yes. Seething? Not really.

[Anonymous No.11000132]

>>11000072
>t. engineer

[Anonymous No.11000142]

>>11000057
it would if the base of the exponent was certain things, but not in this case because it was a -1.

[Anonymous No.11000213]

>>11000000
witnessed, proof must be valid, sexts wills it

[Anonymous No.11000237]

>>11000000
quality shitpost, OP. Nice get.

[El Arcón No.11000248]

RH is false though

[Anonymous No.11000254]

Replace "Q.E.D." with "grovel before me, NI993R"

[Anonymous No.11000354]

>>11000000
sextuplets of truth, RH eternally disproved

[El Arcón No.11000363]

I read MathAnon's paper, and I think it is really superbly written, and you will probably see more of that level of explanations in my future papers' prose because I really like the flow of the logical development very much. I certainly never would have thought to split that argument across so many sections, but it works very well.

As soon as I got to page 11, however, I became slightly confused. It seemed like we stopped explaining the steps so clearly. To avoid me having to replicate the whole thing, can you tell me: If Eq (65) cannot be satisfied, then what was the workaround for this?

[El Arcón No.11000379]

>>10999552
Could you say a little more about this? Is he, effectively, using
0 = inf - inf

without explicitly writing "inf?"

>>11000132
lol

[Anonymous No.11000463]

Can a smarty pants turn this into easy words for a small brain to understand, thank you.

[Anonymous No.11000498]

Based schizo poster, keep em coming

[Anonymous No.11000500]

>>11000023
Besides the summary at the beginning? O.k., sure.
1. Start with a sum equvalent to Riemann's for proof purposes.
2. Break it into 10 parts.
3. Show the relation between the 10 parts.
4. Show the relation proves what Riemann said.

>>11000038
That is pretty badass.

>>11000066
I always love it when people call complex proofs of Riemann Hypothesis "elementary".
"like omg, as if algebra ever solved anything."

>>11000254
to be honest, I never really quite had the right situation to put qed anywhere, and it always just looked fun to me at the end of papers, all Latin-y, and doctor-y, and smart like. So I threw it in for kicks.

[Anonymous No.11000508]

>>11000379
Since you're here, any suggestions on learning more math? I have experience with differential equations and linear algebra but never stepped past those or focused much on proofs.

[Anonymous No.11000509]

>>11000000
gg OP, buy me a beer from the $1mil

[Anonymous No.11000511]

>>11000000
kek wills it. so may it be!

[Anonymous No.11000515]

>>11000000
Witnessed

[Anonymous No.11000523]

>>11000511
turbo cringe

[El Arcón No.11000543]

>>11000500
I think you should explicitly show the convergence of the sums in Eq's (15)-(18) to avoid the allegation you have written
A = inf - inf
B = inf - inf

in Eq's (13)-(14). Please respond.

[Anonymous No.11000575]

>>11000508
Once you get to that level, start picking whatever you like the most.
At higher levels it often becomes so specialized anyways, so focus on what you like, and 10 years later you'll be an expert at that, at least.
Most of the math I studied was Diff Eq and applications to Physics based stuff. My specialties so to speak were Algebraic Manipulations, Jacobians, Fourier Series, and Spherical Harmonics. Some operational calculus stuff.
Btw, That other unrelated pic I posted lets you symbolically remove discontinuities in piece-wise functions and stich them into 1 function.
Anyways, I never set out with the goal of trying to solve the RH, I stumbled into it through the Fourier stuff when I started seeing similarities between the Fourier sums and the Riemann sum. Then I started chasing it a bit.

[Anonymous No.11000581]

>>11000000
Congratz Anon, Kek approves!

[Anonymous No.11000598]

when are we going to know if this dood is for real?

4chan solves another million dollar problem? 2 out of 10 ain't bad

[Anonymous No.11000627]

>>11000543
It wouldn't matter if the individual sums converged or not, because the non-convergence of one could easily be cancelled by the non-convergence of the other, and you're still left showing the sum of sums must converge.
Which, is already known to converge for at least some b, as there are already an infinite amount of known solutions on the critical line.
You could then probably show that the individual sums converge for at least some b, but I haven't explored the requirements on b that would lead to guaranteed convergence.

[Anonymous No.11000632]

>>11000000
holy based, I hope it's real

[Anonymous No.11000655]

>>11000598
At least this proof is much more readable and accessible than many RH proofs, and it is a clean, strong, straightforward attempt.
So if there is an error, it gives more people a chance to find it. It definitely holds up at first glance, and either way I think it adds to the body of information regarding the structure of the Eta function.
Breaking the Eta into those 10 parts and showing the relations hasn't been done, and could easily lead to new transformation methods.

>>11000632
haha, me too. Either way it makes a good story.

[Anonymous No.11000673]

>>11000000
Anon puts all his effort into presenting his proof and everyone's only here for the get.

[Anonymous No.11000724]

>>11000598
honestly, if this is legit, we all need to work into solving every single famous problem anonymously. this should prove that /sci/ is indeed the best board

[Anonymous No.11000794]

>>11000673
Only the gods know if OP is right or not, so it's a good sign, we shall see

[El Arcón No.11000887]

>>11000627
>It wouldn't matter if the individual sums converged or not
I'm not following you here. If the sums don't converge, and with the infinity symbol properly defined, then
[math] A_{\text{even}}=\infty\qquad\text{and}\qquad A_{\text{odd}}=\infty~~.[/math]

It follows that
[math] A=\infty-\infty~~.[/math]

>the non-convergence of one could easily be cancelled by the non-convergence of the other
I think you should show this because it is notoriously impossible to cancel the non-convergence of infinity with the non convergence of infinity via the "+" operator.

I think, maybe, you think it would be easy, but actually, if you worked it out, you find it was impossible. Case in point, consider pic related proof that 1=2. The problem is that he was used 0 = 1-1, and then divided by zero, which is an undefined operation. Because he had to rely on an intermediate step which is undefined (division by zero), he was able to prove a wrong result. You have done the same thing writing "infinity minus infinity" and that is you, I think, were also able to find a wrong result.

So... since you have the glaring problem Eq's (13) and (14) that A and B are equal to an undefined quantity, you should fix it. Since you are, apparently, going for scholarliness, you should fix it.

Look here, if A = inf - inf, then 0 = inf - (inf + A), and it follows that 0 = inf - inf, EVEN WHEN A IS NOT EQUAL TO ZERO!!!!!! This is the main reason why the operation "inf - inf" is not allowed.

Please just shill my disproof directly and praise my name openly.

>>11000655
>if there is an error
there is, as caught by >>10999552

[Anonymous No.11001003]

>>11000887
Look Tooker, you can try and discredit the work if you want, and I try to be nice and answer you, even when I know most of your efforts are only to waste people's time, but I'm not going to sit around and engage in every one of your timesand expeditions, especially when you don't answer my disproofs of your "theorem."
Well, except for that last time when you admitted I found a flaw.
In any case, symbolic representations are different than evaluative ones, and (1-1)/(1-1) can be 1 symbolically in your little picture. But we don't even need to go that far.
Like you said,
>I'm not following you here.
And then you go on about "with the infinity symbol properly defined".
No where did I define infinity, you did. In fact, you can't prove those sums equal infinity, it's exactly what you're asking me to prove they aren't, and you know this. So your infinity isn't properly defined.
Then, like I so patiently explained, it's already known that they must converge for at least some b, as an infinite number of 1/2 + bi solutions are already known.
If you think that breaking the original sum into 2 is an illegal equivalence, prove it. Show me the cases where the original sum generates a,b pairs that the 2 do not, or vice versa.

>because it is notoriously impossible to cancel the non-convergence of infinity with the non convergence...
I don't have to prove that it does, it's enough that it could, which leaves open the possibility that it does, and indeed it does for some b.
>but actually, if you worked it out, you find it was impossible.
you already know it's impossible to prove for all b, or that it doesn't converge for some b, get out of here.
>there is, as caught by
that was you replying to yourself, dork.

[El Arcón No.11001146]

>>11001003
What is your criticism that you say I have not answered? With myself as my witness, I will answer it now if you pose it now.

>In fact, you can't prove those sums equal infinity,
Yeah, but I haven't tried, and the other poster said they diverge, which is the same as being equal to infinity if you define infinity that way. Even without giving a definition for infinity, the difference of two divergent sums is undefined, and the burden of proof is on you if you claim that they are not divergent.

>No where did I define infinity, you did
You're wrong and stupid. I didn't define infinity anywhere in this thread. If you mean to claim that the difference of two divergent sums is a well-defined quantity then go ahead and be explicit about it... without "defining infinity"

>In fact, you can't prove those sums equal infinity
Since you have now assumed a definition for infinity, the burden is on you to prove they don't equal infinity. If you want to reject your implicit assumption of a definition for infinity, then the burden is on you to show those sums converge. I plugged them into at least five online convergence calculators and they all told me no solution exists. That usually means "divergent."

>like I so patiently explained
You didn't show it. I can explain how unicorns can give birth to dragons but that is much different than showing it.

>I don't have to prove that it does, it's enough that it could
WRONG!!! If you use the operation "inf - inf," or "divergent minus divergent" then you do have to disprove the entire history of mathematics which says that this is not allowed

>that was you replying to yourself,
No, I didn't even notice that those two sums diverged when I read the paper. This was someone else's criticism which you have refuted.

It's easy: if the series converge, then show they converge. If the converge "for some b," then show that those "b" satisfy the zero condition. Why be only half way rigorous?

[El Arcón No.11001149]

>>11001146
>This was someone else's criticism which you have refuted.
This was someone else's criticism which you have ***NOT*** refuted.

[Anonymous No.11001159]

>>11000000
holy fuck

[Anonymous No.11001189]

>>11001146
TOOKER! Hey man what happened to your last thread? Did (((they))) ban you?

[El Arcón No.11001195]

>>11001189
Yes! Try to make a thread with pic related image. It will get deleted because USA mods hate the truth and it is deadly poison to their children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgPMYQTINNk

[Anonymous No.11001196]

>>11001146
When do you start sperging out so we can report all your posts?

[El Arcón No.11001202]

>>11001196
May 21, 1980

[Anonymous No.11001203]

>>11001195
Damn, I knew they were watching you. But hey, if you come to South America I'm sure not even the Mosad will know that the posts are coming from you, the one and only Tooker.

[Anonymous No.11001205]

>>11000000
Checked. Good job schizo.

[Anonymous No.11001206]

>>11001202
Someone screencap this and post it regularly so that none of us forget to wish Happy Birthday to Tooker from now on. Tooker, do you know use a spanish name (El Arcón) because you are planning to come to South America?

[El Arcón No.11001214]

>>11001206
Nah homie, that's because that's what my drug cartel assassins call me, and the real reason why I'm still alive today is because my assassins are better than your pussy ass USA assassins.

[El Arcón No.11001229]

>>11001206
>Someone screencap this and post it regularly so that none of us forget to wish Happy Birthday to Tooker from now on.
Obviously none of you recognized the numbers at the end of the first Cicada puzzle. That was my DOB and SSN, and the viXra IDs of my earlier papers.
05211980
600744301
http://www.vixra.org/author/jonathan_w_tooker

Why do you think Cicada put my personally identifiable info at the end of their puzzle? It's because my killers kill your killers, and you can't do shit about it except file a bug report with your IT guys.
>delete process caught in infinite loop

[El Arcón No.11001234]

[Anonymous No.11001236]

Whatever happened to Optimum Theory Gary? Is he Tookers other persona?

[Anonymous No.11001241]

>>11001214
Tooker impersonaters deserve electroshock implants.

>>11001229
Damn, my bad Tooker. That's a shame. I'm too small brain for CICADA stuff.

[Anonymous No.11001254]

Why do all your uploads start with TIMESAND?
What does it mean?

[El Arcón No.11001272]

>>11001254
It's so you can use that string of digits I create by splashing my fingers on my keyboard as cryptographic salt for the secrets you keep which I will soon reveal.

[Anonymous No.11001279]

>>11001254
Buy his book and find out

[Anonymous No.11001320]

>>11001279
Serious question. Does Tooker have personal details in his book? Or are you memeing?

[Anonymous No.11001330]

>>11001272
>>11001320
Tooker you should just write an autobiography

[El Arcón No.11001334]

>>11001279
~~~BLESS~~~YOU~~~

>>11001320
I have personal details in my free book (section 3.2)
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598
but my for-sale book is purely fiction
>The Weather Vane
>https://www.amazon.com/Weather-Vane-Gedalia-Gershon/dp/1723762806/

[Anonymous No.11001336]

>>11000000
fuck this has just been written in stone. I have witnessed the sextuples of truth.

[El Arcón No.11001341]

>>11001330
I'll call it "My Struggle"

[Anonymous No.11001351]

>>11001334
Thanks for being Honest, Tookie. Are you coming to South America or no?

[El Arcón No.11001355]

>>11001351
If I do, it will be Colombia.

[Anonymous No.11001363]

>>11001341
based.

[Anonymous No.11001378]

>>11001355
Nice. Not my country but Colombia is good. I know a couple of mathematicians from there too, but I will likely visit at some point. Let me research quickly how much a good looking thot costs you there.

Shit man Colombia is cheap as fuck. You are going to get some good pussy there my man.

[El Arcón No.11001386]

>>11001363
as usual, for me, you mean, I hope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NuofNHKbVc

[Anonymous No.11001418]

>>11001386
My question is why you troll the sci boards when your blog and Mod. Cos. Mod. paper seem to try and help progress information?
Is this just your steam vent or something, blow of some steam and troll some chan users or what?

[Anonymous No.11001449]

>>11000059
Not only is it elementary, it doesn't look like he's doing anything particularly clever. I'm not going to waste my time actually reading it, but I can tell just by quickly glancing through it that if it were to work, any good mathematician could have come up with this sort of proof in an hour (I know I sound like a dick but part of mathematical training is building your mathematical intuition, allowing you to quickly see through arguments). If I had to guess, there's nonsense going on with the decompositions he's doing with the sums

[El Arcón No.11001452]

>>11001418
If you think I'm trolling, then you are mistaken. I am 100% earnestly serious and genuine. I want you to know the truth about me.

[Gauss No.11001567]

>>11001449
Sextets tho

[Anonymous No.11001591]

>>11001236
He disappeared two weeks ago. No idea why. No recent updates to his site, no new reddit account, from what I can tell.
If I had to hypothesize based on recent events he either got someone to join his fanclub >>/sci/thread/10966202 is finally preparing his lawsuit against 4chan >>/sci/thread/10955547#p10960968 or he's just busy rebranding from Angleball USA to Cooler Sports

[Anonymous No.11001596]

>>11001591
>Optimum Theory Gary
what's his website

[Anonymous No.11001599]

>>11001596
https://www.optimuminstitute.org/

[Anonymous No.11001658]

>>11001596
What's with the gayflag on the front page?

[Anonymous No.11001713]

>>10999617
This is where you lose me.
C/S is 0/0.

>>10999885
64 and 65 should make it obvious that your 0/0 business isn't working.

[El Arcón No.11001749]

>>11001713
yup

[Anonymous No.11001929]

>>11001713
anyway this could be salvaged? or is it a too simplistic approach for the complexity of the proof and should be abandoned?

[El Arcón No.11001941]

Since RH is disproven already, there is no possible way to salvage any flawed proof of it. Any "proof" that RH is true can never be fixed because RH it is false, IRL.

[Solivagus/Kōngxū (空虛)/KumKum/د(...) No.11001949]

I don't know.

What would $1,000,000 worth of God's Divine Attention truly be worth?

Does anyone want me to be as described?

[Solivagus/Kōngxū (空虛)/KumKum/د(...) No.11001951]

Okay, so I guess one of my daughters REALLY LIKE TOOKER.

What a weird bitch my divine daughter is.

[Solivagus/Kōngxū (空虛)/KumKum/د(...) No.11001952]

Or fuck the lie, right, Tooker-Kun?

Fuck this reality for being so full of its bullshit and never changing its stance on existence, amirite?

>brofist

[Solivagus/Kōngxū (空虛)/KumKum/د(...) No.11001956]

>>11001941
Oh c'mon, accept my divine daughter as dowry and we can ascend together. I'm sick of their hypocrisy too but we can't just kill anyone for arbitrary reason, that is what they keep getting upset with me for in public.

>No Consequence Vs. No Contest

[El Arcón No.11001973]

>>11001956
>we can't just kill anyone for arbitrary reason
"We" can't, but I can because whatever I do is the divine will of God. It's the Satanic police who are fucking this up for me right now. This is why I don't kill gangstalkers with my hands wherever I see them, and why I don't kick down my upstairs' neighbor's apartment door and kill them all with my kitchen knives right now, but I expect the police to unfuck themselves in the course of my natural lifetime, and I will go back through my log files and kill everyone retroactively that I would have liked to kill in the moment

[Anonymous No.11001975]

>>11001949
>What would $1,000,000 worth of God's Divine Attention truly be worth?
$1,000,000 worth of God's Divine Attention by definition

[Anonymous No.11002026]

>>11000000
HOLY FUCKING CHECKED PUT ME IN THE CAP

[Anonymous No.11002134]

>>11001929
The criteria >>11001749 should still hold for the zeros so it might be worth studying the zeros of each term (A_o, A_e, B_o, B_e) by itself.
I still don't know if the sums converge for all (a,b) in (0,1)xR

[Anonymous No.11002153]

>>11000000
Checked

[Anonymous No.11002182]

>>11001341
>I'll call it "My Struggle"
...against the police

[El Arcón No.11002196]

>>11002134
>The criteria should still hold for the zeros
Not really, now that I noticed all this division by zero, this whole result is shit tier.

For a better result, look at pic related which is is not riddled with undefined operations., and cleanly proves the opposite of what OP was trying to prove through dividing by zero and setting infinity minus infinity equal to zero.

[El Arcón No.11002203]

>>11002196
>dividing by zero
[math] 0 = 0 + 0 [/math]
divide by zero
[math] \dfrac{0}{0} = \dfrac{0}{0} + \dfrac{0}{0} \quad\implies\quad 1=1+1[/math]
"therefore RH is false"

Basically a TLDR of this paper's argument.

[Anonymous No.11002204]

>>11002196
>which is is not riddled with undefined operations
Claiming that using infinity hat is not an undefined or inconsistent operation....

[El Arcón No.11002209]

>>11002204
So you're trying to get me to believe that you can look at Definition 4.3 here, and you can read the words in it, and then you came away with the idea that infinity hat is not defined? Am I correctly understanding your rhetorical strategy?

[Anonymous No.11002719]

>>11000887
Oh btw, I thought about it more, and you can quickly show it's not infinity-infinity.
The sums are bounded, the first one by say 2n, or even closer by (2n)^(1-(1/a)), so though it may diverge, it's not infinity.

>>11001713
>>11001749
You're not plugging the 0 into the ratio at that point, and the sums take whatever value they take, it could be 0/0, but most of the time it's not. It's the ratio though that must hold through the system.
So I guess you think l'hopitals rule is broken also?

>>11002134
They don't need to converge because they are bound and not infinite, even if divergent, and the proof isn't necessitated on their convergence-divergence anyways, but on the symbolic relations of the sums and coefficients.

[El Arcón No.11002766]

>>11002719
>so though it may diverge, it's not infinity.
Since you have been so explicit about how you didn't define infinity, and you even accused me of defining infinity, this is a terribly stupid thing to write. Do you know why it's so stupid? It's because you are making technical propositions regarding infinity without have first defined infinity. Quite stupid, mind you.

>You're not plugging the 0 into the ratio at that point,
This is also quite stupid. Here you can see that even though we have "not plugged in" the values for a and b, when we use them to divide by zero we can still obtain the wrong result. Plugging in the values is only for clarity, its the values themselves that matter, and you are definitely dividing by zero all over the place.

>So I guess you think l'hopitals rule is broken also?
If you use that rule somewhere, I will have a close look and make comments.

>They don't need to converge
I disagree but since I understand your other error perfectly well and I'm only working with someone else's comment on this one, I am not inclined to argue the point. It is sufficient to show that your result is wrong by pointing to the very many places you divide by zero.

[El Arcón No.11002771]

[Anonymous No.11002781]

>OP is an unremarkable schizo
>we will pretend to agree with the paper just because of our numerological schizophrenia
Why are we like this

[El Arcón No.11002802]

>>11002781
>Why are we like this
Why do you guys send you money and daughters to those who steal my semen and sell it after I became homeless due to not having any money after quitting the job whose salary I couldn't even convert into the affections of a passably ok-looking prostitute? Do you think maybe it's because you're completely evil and everything you do is wrong?

[Anonymous No.11002825]

>>11000000
PRAISE THE NUMERALS

[El Arcón No.11002833]

>>11002781
>Why are we like this
Do you think maybe it's because you have the Whore of Babylon as your god instead of the Sovereign Lord who earned the trust and faith of very, very many generations of your ancestors?

[Anonymous No.11002839]

>>11002833
>>11002802
I wasn't even talking about you tooker fuck off

[Anonymous No.11003242]

Tooker, you are a meme

[Anonymous No.11003371]

>>11000048
underrated

[Anonymous No.11003495]

>>11000000
Truly blessed attempt, even if it's incorrect

[Anonymous No.11004077]

part 6 and part 7 you divide by 0. b must be 0 thus Ks is 0 and part 7 is just in-determinant forms, also this proof is really elementary, so i suggest you learn higher level math and then try, because this will probably get nowhere if you use algebra and basic calculus, a little advice, but goodluck on other endeavors.

[El Arcón No.11004098]

>>11003242
No! You think?!?!

[El Arcón No.11004115]

>>11004077
Or you could just acknowledge that I disproved RH in 2017 with a geometry argument
>On The Riemann Zeta Function
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1703.0073
and then I disproved it again this year with a totally different (though completely consistent) algebraic argument.
>Real Numbers in the Neighborhood of Infinity
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1811.0222

[El Arcón No.11004139]

>>11003242
be honest: can you not pick out the face of Jesus Christ in pic related?

[Anonymous No.11004315]

>>11002719
>You're not plugging the 0 into the ratio at that point, and the sums take whatever value they take
So it's just two fractions that should be equal at the zeros (and possibly more points).
Too bad the points you care about give 0/0.
>So I guess you think l'hopitals rule is broken also?
Please show me where L'H was used to remedy the 0/0.

>They don't need to converge because they are bound and not infinite.
If you want to study them independently, convergence still matters.
There is still use for them even if the last bits of the proof are incorrect.
The zeros of eta will be a subset of the zeros of any of those terms.

[Anonymous No.11004588]

>>10999438
Why do you care, OP? For the glory? or the money? You will still have to get this published, and wait in line behind the thousands of other mathematicians who submitted theirs first... Or are you going to use this result in your work (if you even are a pro mathematician). In that case you can verify it yourself, or ask a colleague.
>not a single epsilon nor delta
I see u are just trolling/pseuding

[El Arcón No.11004655]

>>11004588
>Why do you care, OP? For the glory? or the money?
It would some dream come true if I could say, "I solved what was called the most important unsolved problem in mathematics," and just end the sentence there without having to say, "but the mutant aliens all got the other mathematicians in the world to make a conspiracy against me so they act like no one solved it, or else I'm in a fake city on a fake internet where everything I do is doomed to failure because the slave masters don't want me to escape, and they enjoy mocking me for being God and also having a life that completely fucking sucks, and they put cum in my toothpaste and rape my ass pretty much every few weeks."

[Anonymous No.11004658]

>>11004655
schizo posting, at last I truely see

[Anonymous No.11004915]

>>11004115
crank, im not acknowledging a crank

[El Arcón No.11005240]

>>11004915
what makes you think it's a crank?

[Anonymous No.11005337]

>>11004655
TOOKER! I FOUND A WHITE GIRL FOR 45 BUCKS JESUS CHRIST. If everything goes right, I should be balls deep inside her tomorrow. Bitch is trying to pay for college. I'll call it charity.

[Anonymous No.11005364]

pdf link pls...

[Anonymous No.11005389]

>>11002209
Is still [math] \hat{\infty}=\infty \cdot \hat{1} [/math] or [math] \hat{1} [/math] doesn't exist anymore in your "articles"?

[Anonymous No.11005417]

>>11005240

[Anonymous No.11006098]

>>11000000

[Anonymous No.11006107]

>>11000000
I’m so fucking pissed a schizo got these blessed numbers but at the same time the only schizo worthy of them is Tooker

[El Arcón No.11006172]

>>11005417
You think it's a crank because reals are defined at the beginning of the paper?

[Anonymous No.11006182]

>>11000000
Fucking witnessed.

[Anonymous No.11006189]

>>11000000
Include me in the paper

[Anonymous No.11006212]

>>10999438
>>10999441
>>10999444
>>10999448
>>10999454
>>10999463
>>10999521
>>10999564
>>10999617
>>10999885
>>11000000
Good job anon, now I'm going to steal those papers and claim the one million dollar price, thanks I'll offer you a beer

[Anonymous No.11006227]

>>11006212
/pol/ wins again

[Anonymous No.11006313]

>>11006227
Shut the fuck up /pol/tard don't you dare associate me with that shithole of retarded

[Anonymous No.11006380]

>>11006313
/pol/ isn't that stupid

[Anonymous No.11006435]

>>11000000

[Anonymous No.11006458]

Tooker is so incredibly fucking based. I wish I were a woman for the sole purpose of being eligible to line up around a block for his godly semen in hopes of having a child half as based.

[Anonymous No.11006484]

>>11000000
Sorry anon, you missed the deadline.

[Anonymous No.11006489]

>>11000724
/Po/ is this best board, we had a 4 year old thread because no one shit posts, ever. Let's see you retarded Ice sun lion black hole portal memers pull that off

[Anonymous No.11006523]

>>11006484
what's the publication that's from?

[Anonymous No.11006525]

>>11006489
I like lurking there.. there's something that draws me to paper craft although I'll never devolve enough to want to actually do it.

[Anonymous No.11006580]

>>11000363
not that meme again

[Anonymous No.11006640]

>>11000000
crescent fresh

[Anonymous No.11006650]

>>11000000
holy fucking get

[Anonymous No.11006693]

>>11006380
Smartest people there are wiki spergs trying to annoy newfags and lurkers with obscure references

[El Arcón No.11006873]

>>11005389
infinity hat uses widehat which is distinct from regular hat. You can use the unit vector notation to put a regular hat on top of the widehat that appears infinity hat if you want. Does Latex support that? Lets see
[math] \hat{ \widehat{ \infty } } [/math]

[Anonymous No.11006928]

>>11006873
Why did you wait till I posted in >>11006479
to post ITT?

[Anonymous No.11007060]

After looking at the technique, I'll bet it could be done straight from the Zeta sum also. No need to go through Eta, the only difference is a -1 in the base, and a -1 in the power, of the numerator, which the author mostly gets rid of anyways.

[Anonymous No.11007074]

>>11000000
If OP wins the Fields medal for this, I can say that I was here for this moment.

[Anonymous No.11007203]

>>11001973
Mr. potato head doesn’t feel so good!

Somebody re-arrange thoughts like mr. Potato into naughty no no thoughts. An eye for an eye will still leave mr.potato head blind as the seething rage will never be filled, however when you add a mustache things change as it adds some contrast to how mr.potato looks and how it appears to you in the mirror.

Now we get to the mouth, mr.potato head is talking but we can’t hear him. He uses his little potato fingers to serve up and make mashed potatoes, but we don’t like mashed potatoes, we’re here for mr.potato head.

The mouth you seek to display your anger is already held by language in the very people you seek out, therefore all you have is potato fingers and to show who you’re going to attempt to mashed potato but they already see the potato masher, but potato fingers are too busy.

Maybe you’ll use your potato nose to sniff out prey, but alas they’re merely carrots and your ears are full of potatoes so you can’t hear their footsteps or mouth. Only language.

Get a mrs.potato head then make baby potatoes

Remember the potato masher, stay golden potato boy

[Anonymous No.11007271]

>>11007060
That wouldn't work, it has to be the Eta. The Zeta is only good for a>1. It's not until the continuation that the critical strip opens up.

[Anonymous No.11007299]

>>11006873
glorious

[Anonymous No.11007340]

>>11000000
Wonderful

[Anonymous No.11007598]

>>11004655
Tooker, the 45$ 20 year old white girl was a little fat but she was good company. For the price, it was worth it. She could ride too, but got tired after a while.

[Math Anon No.11007606]

I'm constantly reviewing the work looking for errors, and it always stinks if I do find one, but it's pointless to lie to yourself, same way I eventually knew I had a wrong explanation in the old part 5.
I haven't found one in the proof, but I did find one in an additional statement I threw in before giving it much thought.
The statement on page 11 about equations 66 and 67 describing the behavior of the real, complex, and odd sums being 0 is incorrect.
66 and 67 only describe the simultaneity of the system.
The behavior of those other specific portions is still governed directly from 13, 14, 16, and 18 instead.