Riemann Hypothesis proof

[Anonymous No.11593219]

Proof of Riemann Hypothesis. Basically the reciprocal of the zeta function is a eigen function of the Laplace transform, and the Laplace transform has specific properties regarding poles and zeros.

[Anonymous No.11593229]

>>11593219
On the same note, here's a proof using Fourier Transform:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZdlKo9Ee4c

[Anonymous No.11593285]

>>11593229

Very interesting

[Anonymous No.11593289]

>>11593219
I'm seeing a distinctive lack of numbers here. Remember when math made sense? 2+2=4? Well now these mind controllers are gaslighting kids, saying xyzpdq and therefore abxyz which means 2+2=5. Truly dystopian, and you should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating this nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11593294]

>>11593289

What? I'm actually an electrical engineer. All the things presented are things that are necessary to design electronics. Do you want to live in A world without electricity?

[Anonymous No.11593303]

>>11593294
You don't need that shit. I'm in electrics too and I never use that. I can tell you've never worked in the field. Thomas Edison didn't need this Chinese bullshit to invent the light bulb.

[Anonymous No.11593315]

>>11593303
>. Thomas Edison didn't need this Chinese bullshit to invent the light bulb.

Two points for you. Thomas Edison wasn't educated but Tesla was.

Tesla invented the gas discharge lamp and the AC power distribution grid. Edison wanted DC power transmission and the incandescent light bulb.

Incandescent bulbs are so inefficient they are illegal now and all efficient lamps are gas discharge and DC power transmission was so inefficient it could never have worked at all.

[Anonymous No.11593351]

>He's still going at it

[Anonymous No.11593357]

>>11593351

Just prove me wrong. I've put alot of time into this and more since all my previous posts. I'm convinced I have made no errors. Please point out my fault.

[Anonymous No.11593382]

>>11593357
Why don't you post it to arxiv and see what the professionals say instead of posting it here? Surely 4channel isn't the place to post your proof.

Actually, I think I'm gonna post it to arxiv myself, yeah, I need a million dollars in my pocket...

[Anonymous No.11593393]

>>11593382

I actually don't care, who gets the money, and getting published is hard. I'd know I solved it and that would be sufficient.

[Alexandre Brodeur No.11593407]

I respect the amount of time you have put into this

[Alexandre Brodeur No.11593418]

It truly makes one respect proofs. Back whenever one was in calculus I, ahhh Riemann Sums, so pure

[Alexandre Brodeur No.11593436]

I do have to admit though, this is beyond my math education. I hope I will one day reach this level of complexity

[Anonymous No.11593450]

>>11593407
>>11593418
>>11593436
OP you're not fooling anybody. Jesus more schizos is the last thing /sci/ needed.

[Anonymous No.11593537]

>>11593450

This isn't a troll. Just review it. Tell me where I made an error >>11593450

[Anonymous No.11593963]

>>11593219
Last line is wrong.
You are using the analytically continued value of 1/zeta at 1/2 to conclude that the dirichlet series for 1/zeta converges at 1/2.
That is just as wrong as using the analytically continued value of zeta at -1 to conclude 1+2+3+... converges.

[Anonymous No.11593974]

Why are you using Xi instead of Zeta for the Zeta function?

[Anonymous No.11593977]

also you spelt Square wrong in several places

[Anonymous No.11593979]

>>11593963
Protip: you don't need to even show convergence at 1/2.
Showing it converges for 1/2 + r for all positive r would work.

[Anonymous No.11594002]

>>11593393
Based

[Anonymous No.11594075]

>>11593303

>what is semiconductor theory

Yeah you fix bulbs bro we get it.

[Anonymous No.11594252]

>>11594075
Semiconductors... 'bout as complicated as a one-way door. Mosfet? One way door with a capacitor gatekeeper. Don't need none of that spell-casting nonsense to understand it.

[Anonymous No.11594490]

>>11593357
I still think youre based.

[Anonymous No.11594498]

>>11593303
is that you joe biden?

[Anonymous No.11594499]

>>11593357
>point out my fault
second line. ζ(s) = [what you wrote there]
is only valid if the real part of s is greater than 1.
>but analytic continuation yada yada
that's not how analytic continuation works

[Anonymous No.11594771]

>>11593963

I'm not trying to prove convergence. I'm trying to prove the Riemann Hypothesis. The riemann hypothesis assumes convergence issues are handled through analytic continuation. This sounds like a good criticism, but you are moving the goal posts. Analytic continuation was proved by Riemann more than a hundred years ago and it not the point of the Riemann Hypothesis. The first line says I take analytic continuation for granted. It's therefore not a valid criticism. I'm not trying to prove analytic continuation. I'm just using it, since it's truth is implicit in the Riemann Hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.11594782]

>>11594499
>that's not how analytic continuation works

The point here isn't to prove if analytic continuation is real or not. I'm taking it for granted. Please tell me how I am misapplying analytic continuation. My impression is that it is a way to find defined values for functions that have a curtailed domain because of divergence. Am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.11594791]

>>11594771
>I'm not trying to prove convergence
Um, yes you are
>The last step is to show this does not diverge.

[Anonymous No.11594920]

>>11593294
Of course.

[Anonymous No.11594940]

>>11594498
Listen Jack. You'd better shut that rootin-tooin fancy mouth-a yours before I give you the old one-two and send ya flying side-a-ways. Jiminy crickets, I oughta set ol' Cornpop on your ass, you deadbeat hippie, dadgumit!

[Anonymous No.11595178]

>>11594791

You are correct. The last step is to show that a function is defined at 1/2. That function is also the zeta function, which can be analytically continued,so it is defined

[El Arcón No.11595397]

>The riemann hypothesis assumes convergence issues are handled through analytic continuation.
The sewer man glutimates bananas are groffled in the portico.

[Anonymous No.11595485]

>>11594782
>tell me how I am misapplying analytic continuation
[math]\prod_p \frac{1}{1-p^{-s}} [/math] is not the zeta function. it is the function the zeta function agrees with for values of s with real part >1. the zeta function is the analytic
continuation of [math]\prod_p \frac{1}{1-p^{-s}} [/math] but the formula isn't valid for all s in the domain of the zeta function

[Anonymous No.11595487]

>>11595397

This is crazy. What even is your argument here? I'm not the guy who made up analytic continuation anyways, but how can anyone ever solve anything regarding the zeta function if analytic continuation isn't assumed to be correct?

If you don't believe in analytic continuation then fine. There are no zeros, since the dirichlet series diverges.

[Anonymous No.11595503]

>>11595485

I am using the infinite series and products to motivate an identity. That identity relates the reciprocal of the zeta function to itself after Laplace transform. Since , in the end the zeta function can be continued, what I start with and end with converge below 1, so it's completely valid.

[Anonymous No.11595553]

>>11595503
the last identity is only valid if the real part of s is bigger than 1.

[Anonymous No.11595560]

>>11595553
I mean the one before the last. the sum_squarefree blablabla = 1/zeta(s) part. you cannot use this identity because it doesn't hold for s=1/2

[Anonymous No.11595568]

>>11595503
You can use a falsehood to prove whatever you want, yes.

[Anonymous No.11595570]

>>11594252

Ok, build a computer chip foundry with DC lightbulbs then. Your nobel prize(s) await!

[Anonymous No.11595660]

>>11595560

But the left hand side is defined there through analytic continuation, so therefore right hand side is defined too.

[El Arcón No.11595664]

>>11595487
>What even is your argument here?
I didn't make an argument.

>how can anyone ever solve anything regarding the zeta function if analytic continuation isn't assumed to be correct?
By proving the convergence, obviously, like based poster already said: >>11593963

Anyways, RH is false. I disproved it years ago and have three different independent disproofs by now.

LONG VERSION:
Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
PDF: https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
JPG: https://ibb [doot] co/album/jNypiv

[Anonymous No.11595677]

>>11595568
>You can use a falsehood to prove whatever you want, yes.

I think you are being sarcastic. I'll take the bait. Let's say that the inverse Laplace integrated of the reciprocal of the zeta function is not the reciprocal of the zeta function, then what is it? I argue it can't be anything else, through analytic continuation. If the proof is valid for s>1 and all functions involved have a unique analytic continuation, then the identity holds for all real numbers, because it simply can't be any other way a la riemann.

[El Arcón No.11595688]

>>11595677
Why not actually crank out the calculation with all the steps instead of arguing about what the steps would be if you actually wrote them out? You're probably dividing by zero somewhere, or something.

[Anonymous No.11595693]

>>11595664

Do you have anything more concise? I can't review hundreds of arguments for validity in the time ive alloyed to this. It woul be much easier for you to show my error. I'm saying something very simple in the end. I'm using an integral transform to demonstrate an identity for the Riemann zeta function. The integral transform has properties itself, namely the transform will not converge if the poles are in the right hand plane. It's incredibly simple.

[Anonymous No.11595700]

>>11593219

The Riemann Hypothesis? Wasn't that already proved? Ah, yes, by the great GNET GNENBOM

https://vixra.org/abs/2001.0205

[Anonymous No.11595704]

>>11595688
>You're probably dividing by zero somewhere, or something.

I do. The zeta function has poles and zeros. By reciprocating, I'm dividing by the zeros. What's your point? I could just say it's valid such that it's never evaluated at the zeta zeros, but we are missing the point

[El Arcón No.11595753]

>>11595704
>What's your point?
My point is that if you actually write out the steps instead of just talking about what they would be hypothetically, then you would probably come across an undefined operation, or something, that blocks your step-by-step proof somewhere.

Also my point: Why not write the steps out instead of trying to convince people of what the steps would be if you did write them?

[Anonymous No.11595766]

>>11595753
>then you would probably come across an undefined operation,

I'm way ahead of you. I've been doing numerical experiments just in case there is a scenario like you claim. So far everything is legit , even s<1. This isn't a troll or something boneheaded. I've gone through the steps, I've crunched the numbers. The identity is valid. The consequences of this prove the Riemann Hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.11595783]

>>11595664
Can you list a few zeros with a different real part?

[Anonymous No.11596081]

>>11595660
What? Well yes the zeta function is defined in other places but that doesn't mean you van use the prime identity and their properties in the rest of the proof if you are in an area of the complex plabe were it doesn't hold. How fucking retarded are you?

[Anonymous No.11596111]

>>11593315
>Incandescent bulbs are so inefficient they are illegal now
in the eu, and they were made illegal because they were cheap and industrial lobbying did not like it. inefficiency was just the lame excuse. ponder this a bit: how is it anyone’s business if I want to waste energy?

[Anonymous No.11596277]

>>11596081
>that doesn't mean you van use the prime identity and their properties in the rest of the proof if you are in an area of the complex plabe were it doesn't hold. How fucking retarded are you?

Very? This is just an ad hominem. Tell me why or even how the left hand side of the equation is defined for all complex numbers but the right hand side isn't. What does the equal sign mean to you?

[Anonymous No.11596281]

>>11596111
>: how is it anyone’s business if I want to waste energy

We aren't talking about politics, I was showing you how your hero Edison actually held back technological progress, by being an uneducated fool. The gas discharge lamp was invented contemporaneously, but was not fully adopted because of Luddites like you. If you want to throw your money out the window on heating a room with your lighting go ahead

[Anonymous No.11596833]

>>11595570
>DC light bulbs
Why? Just use tubes and fets... Like I said, it doesn't take rocket science to hook those things up.

[Anonymous No.11597084]

>>11595783
Here's a few:
[eqn] z_1=\dfrac{2}{3}+i\big(\widehat\infty-\pi\big)\\
z_2=\dfrac{3}{4}-i\big(\widehat\infty-\sqrt{19}\big)\\
z_3=\dfrac{4}{5}+i\big(\aleph_{0.5}+7\big) [/eqn]

[Anonymous No.11597156]

>>11597084

Are you tooker?

[Anonymous No.11597162]

>>11597084
Can you list actual complex numbers?

[Anonymous No.11597184]

>>11595766
Experimentation is not mathematics dude. Lots of people have done experiments and found zeroes. You have to prove none of the important numbers could ever be out of place.

Write out all the steps and publish it. You'll have to in order to convince everyone you've really done it when there's $1,000,000 on the line. No johns. Just get to writing.

[Anonymous No.11597323]

>>11597156
I certainly am.

>>11597162
yes

>>11597184
$600k after taxes

[El Arcón No.11597353]

RH is false, short edition

[Anonymous No.11598234]

>>11597184
>Experimentation is not mathematics dude.

Yes it is. Computation is math. I concede it's less rigorous than an elegant short proof, but you were saying I probably divided by zero somewhere so my results were nonsensical. This isn't true since actually computing the expressions gives sensible results at every step.

[Anonymous No.11598241]

>>11597184

[Anonymous No.11598251]

>>11598234

> I postulate that all numbers are less than 10, I've computed all the integers up to 9 and it holds so far

Either it's rigorous or it's not, smoothbrain.

[Anonymous No.11598255]

>>11598241
Is that statement on the t-shirt true for all n??

[Anonymous No.11598258]

>>11594782
taking the analytical continuation is akin to taking a new axiom. When we say "prove something" usually we mean "within the limits of existing mathematics". What you've done is extended mathematics, and proved the Riemann Hypothesis is consistent with your new mathematics. This is well and good, and certainly a nice result, but it does not tell us whether the Riemann Hypothesis is consistent with mathematics that does not take your new axiom, which is what we actually care about.

[Anonymous No.11598261]

>>11598251
>Either it's rigorous or it's not, smoothbrain

A mixture of ad hominem and hyperbole. Computation is a big part of mathematics, sorry you don't want to accept that.

[Anonymous No.11598262]

>>11598258
On the other hand though, what OP is doing is simply nonsense. So there is that too.

[Anonymous No.11598265]

>>11598258

The riemann hypothesis assumes analytic continuation is fact. To prove it, I must do the same. That's why it's the first line.

[Anonymous No.11598270]

>>11598265
Here's a cool proof that x -> y.

Assuming y:
y

That was easy!

[Anonymous No.11598271]

>>11598262
>On the other hand though, what OP is doing is simply nonsense. So there is that too.

Said the guy who is unable to point out my mistake.

[Anonymous No.11598279]

>>11598270

Terrible analogy. This is better

Y=x-a,. Prove y = 0 at x=a

Me: y=a-a=0
You: nuh uh who said y=x-a

I'm only using facts given in the question.you are telling me I can't, which is dumb

[Anonymous No.11598283]

>>11598271
Why do you think so? Your mistake is obvious to everyone here. They are only trolling you for lulz.

[Anonymous No.11598304]

>>11597323

> Can you list actual complex numbers?

> yes

Are they a secret?

[Anonymous No.11598357]

>>11597156
Holy shit is this the guy who calls himself the greatest living physicist??

[Anonymous No.11598358]

>>11598279
not much better. Here's something more analogous to your argument:

for all x greater than zero, the following identity holds:

abs(x) = x

because of this fact, let us define anon's function f(x) = x. for the domain greater than 0, anon's function is equivalent to abs(x)

anon's hypothesis: this function f(x) is never negative.

take a continuation such that this identity holds for the entire domain, such that f(x) = abs(x). clearly, abs(x) > 0 for all x. Therefore f(x) > 0 for all x.

[Anonymous No.11598540]

>>11598358

This would be accurate if analytic continuation hadn't been defined and implicit in the question. You keep getting hung up on this red herring.

[Anonymous No.11598632]

>>11598540
the continuation of f(x) is just as defined and implicit in my question. I don't see where the logic diverges I'm afraid.

the zeta function is not defined as the sum. it is defined as the integral. the integral is well-defined even if you had absolutely no conception of the sum or its analytical continuation. the Riemann hypothesis likewise says nothing about the sum. it strictly talks about the function, which is defined by the integral.

likewise, f(x) is not defined as abs(x). it is defined as x, and exists whether or not the concept of abs(x) exists. anon's hypothesis has nothing to do with abs(x), only f(x).

[Anonymous No.11598700]

>>11593294
why don't they have electricity in A world? and what world am I in right now?

[Anonymous No.11598713]

>>11598540
You're assuming something that *isn't true*. The very first identity is incorrect, which invalidates your entire "proof".

Go to school, read a book, but whatever you do, stop trying to defend this. It's wrong.

[Anonymous No.11598823]

>>11598632

If you want to argue this, then the zeta function has nothing to do with prime numbers, since the prime number product is derived from the dirichlet series, which you are saying is definitely not the zeta function and completely unrelated

Do you agree? In your opinion what is the relevance of the zeros of the zeta function in light of the fact it has nothing to do with the dirichlet series or prime numbers?

[Anonymous No.11598825]

>>11598713

I got the prime product form from Wikipedia. What is incorrect about it?

[El Arcón No.11598861]

>>11598258
>the limits of existing mathematics"
[math] \mathbb{R}=(-\infty,\infty) [/math]

IMO, existing mathematics requires that R fills the connected interval. If every x in R is less than some natural number, an idea which is trendy in pop math, then there can be no x at the midpoint of (0,inf). If there is no x at the midpoint, then R does not fill the interval and it is not connected. This is a contradiction so one may not rigorously take two axioms: the typeset one above and the other one about natural numbers.

The two axioms are contradictory but math is being a little bitch right now by acting like they aren't. This is a big problem right now in "existing mathematics."

>>11598357
I call myself the most successful living physicist unless I may have mispoken, but i am also what you wrote.

[El Arcón No.11598870]

>most successful living physicist
Quantum Structure
https://vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

[El Arcón No.11598934]

Here's a nice infographic that shows how my solution to quantum gravity follows EXACTLY the form followed by Higgs in his famous 2 page paper which got him name dropped 1000 times a day for 30 years.

[Anonymous No.11598996]

>>11593289
good bait

[Anonymous No.11599236]

>>11598261
You can't conseivably test your computations for all complex numbers, but since you apparently need to prove it for all, you will need to rigorously prove it.

[Anonymous No.11599243]

>>11598258
Are you mentally handicapped?

[Anonymous No.11599249]

>>11598304
Listing complex numbers is not required to disprove the hypothesis, but his refusal to do so without explanation is definitely telling

[Anonymous No.11599252]

>>11598713
Read >>11599243, retard

[Anonymous No.11599261]

>>11598861
You fucking idiot, you seriously call yourself a mathematician? Infinity/2 is equal to infinity in this sense, and since we have an open interval, it need not be in the set

[Anonymous No.11599267]

>>11598934
Then why don't you get a noble price? Why doesn't arxiv accept your paper?

Why don't you submit your Riemann Hypothesis Solution?

[Anonymous No.11599821]

>>11593219
DEAR OP, THAT SORDID FAGGOT I WAS TALKING ABOUT JUST RUINED ONE OF MY WHOLESOME THREADS WITH HIS WALL OF AUTISM.

LOOK AT HIM: >>11594499 <-- THAT MOTHERFUCKER. I HATE HIM SO MUCH! THAT IS THE CANCER KILLING /SCI/

BUT NOT YOU, OP - YOU ARE BETTER THAN HIM - I LIKE YOUR STYLE

I AM GOING TO READ YOUR ENTIRE FUCKING POST TO SPITE HIM. I AM CHANNELING AN UNFAMILIAR CONTEMPT

MY MATH WITHIN ME NOW PLUNGES MY MIND INTO A DEBAUCHED LOCOMOTION

OP, YOU'VE EARNED MY ATTENTION. FOR YOU I WILL EFFECT A CARNAL CEREBRATION OF ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE WRIT, AND THEN I WILL READ YOUR OTHER POST UNTIL I'VE GROKKED EVERY FUCKING COROLLARY, EVERY DIALECTICAL IMPIETY, UNTIL I'VE EXCAVATED THE THEORY OF EVERY LINE, UNTIL I'VE EXCORIATED LAYER AFTER LAYER OF LINGUISTIC OBSTRUCTION FROM YOUR FEEBLE SCRIBBLES. AT THIS, I MATHGASM FURIOUSLY. HATRED BROUGHT ME HERE. THE FORTRESS AROUND ME PROTECTS WHAT IS LEFT OF MY HEART. LOGIC DOESN'T COME TO ME, IT BLEEDS FROM ME. I WILL STUDY UNTIL THE TEARS OF RIGOR AND ABSTRACTION EXUDING FROM MY PORES HAVE CLEANSED THE IMPIETIES OF PHYSICAL IMITATION, UNTIL THE LOGIC AT THE BOTTOM IS SPLAYED NAKED BEFORE ME. UNTIL I'VE STOPPED FLAGELLATING THE LOGIC, AS THE LATENT PLATONIC ENTITY REARS ITS FORM, WRITHING INVISIBLY WITH POWER. AND WHEN I'VE MADE CARBON OF THE ENTITY'S PRESENCE NOW ENCODED AS A TULPA IN MY BRAIN. I WILL STUDY UNTIL I ASPHYXIATE, WANGBONE SKYWARD, BAREBACKED BY MY TULPA TO THE APEX OF DIDACTIC EUPHORIA.

[Anonymous No.11599886]

>>11595664
/thread

[El Arcón No.11599928]

>>11599249
Your opinion that I didn't post them here>>11597084 is like my opinion that you know I did post them already.

>>11599261
>Infinity/2 is equal to infinity in this sense
I disagree.

>>11599267
>Why doesn't arxiv accept your paper?
You would have to ask them why they do what they do. I don't know why they do it.

>>11599267
>Why don't you submit your Riemann Hypothesis Solution?
I did submit several different versions of it. Arxiv rejected it because it "contained no scholarly content." Note that it wasn't simply wrong or stupid, it was the content was something besides "scholarly."

Anyways... if you look at the rules of Millennium prizes, the waiver they issued to Perelman to give him the money is the same one they would need to issue to me for my publication on viXra. Perelman didn't get his shit peer-reviewed, and he didn't post the solution in any place that conforms to the requirements of the prize. However, the rules also say they can give a waiver if they want to. Even if I did get my paper on arXiv, something which could never happen, ever, then they would still have to issue me the exact same rules waiver as if I had just left my paper on viXra.

And really it's better for my peace of mind if arXiv keeps fucking me over because then when I round them up and exterminate the staff and their families for all the fucking me over they already did, it won't be weird because they did eventually stop fucking me. You know?

[Anonymous No.11599976]

>>11599928
>>11598934
>>11598870
>>11598861
>>11597353
>>11597084
>>11595664
Absolutely BASED

[Anonymous No.11599980]

>>11599976
I <3 tooky

[Anonymous No.11600034]

>>11598823
don't put words into my mouth. Read my post again. The zeta function is absolutely related to the dirichlet series, just as much as the gamma function is related to the factorial. What is important is that this is not the formal definition of the zeta function.

When I joined this thread, I thought I would show you nicely why everyone thought you were a retard but didn't bother explaining why. Now I see that you are so stubborn in your conviction that you purposefully misread my comments so you can remain "right". fine by me.

>>11599243
you might be

[Anonymous No.11600194]

>>11598825
The product formula is only convergent when the real part is greater than 1. You're assuming, without any justification, that they're equal over the entire complex plane.

You're not even an embarrassment to mathematics at this point. You're a living meme. I can only dream of the day that googling my name gives pages upon pages of results of people calling me a crackpot.

[Anonymous No.11600452]

>>11600034
>What is important is that this is not the formal definition of the zeta function.

But you didn't answer my question and it get to the heart of the issue here. You just keep doing ad hominems.

The prime formula for the zeta function is also not the formal definition, so how does the zeta function zeros have any relevance for prime numbers?

Please answer this. I was hoping someone would bring it up, but you'd rather throw shit then give an answer.

The prime form doesn't converge under 1 it's not the real zeta function, so why do the zeros of the zeta function have any relation to primes? It's a perfectly fair question.

[Anonymous No.11600457]

>>11600194

Answer this

>>11600452

[Anonymous No.11600558]

>>11600452
>The prime form doesn't converge under 1 it's not the real zeta function, so why do the zeros of the zeta function have any relation to primes? It's a perfectly fair question.
It's a fair question for an undergrad student in a number theory class. Not for somebody who thinks they've proven the Riemann hypothesis.

This is one of the weirder aspects of all the schizo proofs of RH to me. At least with elementary conjectures like, say, Collatz, they can tell you what they did. "oh, I proved every so and so sequence terminates".
With RH, they literally never give a single shit what the conjecture actually means. There's never an ounce of number theory in any of the proofs, it's always only about zeta.
I understand they're mostly doing it out of ego and the desire to be famous, but it's still bizarre to me that they're all so happy writing up proofs of some weird fact about the zeroes of some weird function even though they couldn't begin to explain to you why anybody should even care.

[Anonymous No.11600583]

>>11600558

You failed to answer the question.

Let's review:
>Be Riemann
>Playing with dirichlet series
>Kewl prime numbers product but diverges < 1
>Kewl integral form that converges everywhere
>I'll take the primes from this series that diverges and the zeros from this integral mix them together and say it means something very profound
>300 years later no one says anything

>Be op
>Derive other properties from the product formula
>Make a statement relating other properties of the prime form to the integral form zeros

>Be everyone else
>Nuh-uhh. The prime form doesn't converge and it completely different,so you can't say the prime form implies anything about the zeros in the integral form

>Be me
>Explain this shit

>Be everyone here
>I said nuh-uh RETARD FAGgOt

[Anonymous No.11600602]

>>11600583
OP's delusion:
>>I'll take the primes from this series that diverges and the zeros from this integral mix them together and say it means something very profound

Reality:
>The Riemann hypothesis discusses zeros outside the region of convergence of this series and Euler product. To make sense of the hypothesis, it is necessary to analytically continue the function to obtain a form that is valid for all complex s. This is permissible because the zeta function is meromorphic, so its analytic continuation is guaranteed to be unique and functional forms equivalent over their domains.

OP's delusion:
>>Be op
>>Derive other properties from the product formula

Reality:
>Be op
>don't derive anything, just handwave

[Anonymous No.11600629]

>>11600583
I did not fail to answer the question. I did not attempt to answer the question.
I simply posted some thoughts about the fact that the question was even asked.

[Anonymous No.11600634]

>>11600602
>>The Riemann hypothesis discusses zeros outside the region of convergence of this series and Euler product. To make sense of the hypothesis, it is necessary to analytically continue the function t

This is bullshit and you know it. The first line of my proof is that I use analytic continuation too. I am doing the exact thing Riemann is.

If you don't believe analytic continuation fine, but the zeros of the integral have no relevance to the primes.

If you do believe analytic continuation fine, but you're going to have to accept my proof

[Anonymous No.11600639]

>>11600457

> How does understanding the behaviour of an object in a limited scope help our understanding of the object in a wider scope

Mirror-polished brain crew are out in force this evening.

[Anonymous No.11600645]

>>11600634
what do you think analytic continuation is? I'd be interested to hear in your own words what it means.

[Anonymous No.11600649]

>>11600639

But this is what I'm doing. I'm using the prime form to highlight properties of the zeta function. My question to the other guy, was how come we allow Riemann to do it but I'm strictly forbidden?

[Anonymous No.11600653]

>>11600645
>what do you think analytic continuation is?

Exactly what Riemann said it is. Show me where I've misapplied it.

[Anonymous No.11600656]

>>11600653
>Exactly what Riemann said it is.
What did Riemann say it is?

[Anonymous No.11600662]

>>11600634
>This is bullshit and you know it.
LOL, please tell me more about how rigorously proven math is bullshit.

>The first line of my proof is that I use analytic continuation too.
Saying "this is true because analytic continuation" is not math. First prove the analytic continuation is rigorous and implies what you claim it implies. Riemann did this. You did not. It's as simple as that.

[Anonymous No.11600679]

>>11600634
>>11600653
Jesus fucking christ, give it a rest. Nobody is debating that analytic continuation is possible. You did it wrong and your "proof" is dogshit.

[Anonymous No.11600737]

>>11600649

Because Riemann wrote rigorous proofs to justify his theories, as does every other mathematician. You have thus far completely and utterly failed to do this.

Real mathematicians also know when to stop defending a broken idea. Take the hint.

[Anonymous No.11600748]

>>11600679
>You did it wrong and your "proof" is dogshit.

Show me where I made a mistake

[Anonymous No.11600759]

>>11600737
>Because Riemann wrote rigorous proofs to justify his theories, as does every other mathematician.

Where am I lacking rigor?

[Anonymous No.11600761]

>>11600662
>First prove the analytic continuation

Why do I have to prove something that is already proven?

[Anonymous No.11600768]

>>11600662
>LOL, please tell me more about how rigorously proven math is bullshit

I'm saying you are bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11600811]

>>11600748
Plenty of people in this thread have explained your mistakes better than I can. Your refusal to even consider the possibility that you might be wrong shows a dangerous combination of narcissism and idiocy.

>>11600761
In science and mathematics we have a thing called a citation. It's where an author relies on a previous result, and they tell the reader exactly where to look for verification of this result. It was invented to hold liars and lunatics to account. These are conspicuously absent in your proof.

[Anonymous No.11600825]

>>11600811
>Plenty of people in this thread have explained your mistakes better than I can.

But they haven't.

[Anonymous No.11600851]

>>11600825

>>11593963
>>11594499
>>11595485
>>11598632

If you read these, and understand what they're saying, but still think you're right, then you need psychiatric help and strong medication.

What about those citations?

[Anonymous No.11600854]

>>11600825
Similarly to how you haven't explained what analytic continuation is.
You keep saying you're using it "exactly as Riemann said", but when I ask you what Riemann said, you ignore the post.
If you're really using exactly Riemann's definition, then it shouldn't be any issue for you to say what Riemann's definition is.

[Anonymous No.11600867]

>>11600851
>If you read these, and understand what they're saying, but still think you're right, then you need psychiatric help and strong medication.

My answer to all those was analytic continuation. Now what is your response to that?

[Anonymous No.11600870]

>>11600854
>Similarly to how you haven't explained what analytic continuation is

I don't have to. It's already, defined, published and proven.

[Anonymous No.11600878]

>>11600870
If it's already defined, then tell me what it is.

[Anonymous No.11600887]

>>11600867
Where exactly are the results you use proven? Show us a paper. If it's already defined, published, and proven, that should be very easy.

[Anonymous No.11600888]

>>11600878
>If it's already defined, then tell me what it is.

Christ, go read it your fucking self. Are you serious?

[Anonymous No.11600891]

>>11600887

I can't believe this shit. Go find the proof for analytic continuation your damn self.

[Anonymous No.11600892]

>>11600888
It seems awfully rude of you to insist that other people have to give you explanations, but then refuse to give any explanations yourself.
If you're too lazy to argue with me, why should I bother arguing with you?

[Anonymous No.11600906]

>>11600891
>>11600888
So you have no idea what it means, you just like throwing the words around because it conveniently distracts from a gaping chasm in your logic.

[Anonymous No.11600910]

>>11600892
>It seems awfully rude of you to insist that other people have to give you explanations, but then refuse to give any explanations yourself.

Yeah, I'm rude. now fuck off. You aren't contributing anything anyway.

[Anonymous No.11600915]

>>11600906
>So you have no idea what it means

God you are bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11600916]

>>11600768
>I'm saying you are bullshit.
No, you said "this is bullshit" right after quoting the justification for Riemann's analytic continuation. Of course, you never explained what exactly is bullshit, making the comment as meaningless as your new interpretation.

Also, saying "this is true because analytic continuation" is not math. First prove the analytic continuation is rigorous and implies what you claim it implies. Riemann did this. You did not. It's as simple as that.

[Anonymous No.11600922]

>>11593289
>2+2=5
Its 1+1=3 or, if you're eccentric, 1+0=2.

[Anonymous No.11600930]

>>11600916
>First prove the analytic continuation i

How are you all this stupid? The analytic continuation of the riemann is proven. Why do I have to re-prove it to you here?

[Anonymous No.11600931]

>>11600910
I tried to contribute. You told me to "go find it my damn self". It takes two people have to have a discussion, anon.

[Anonymous No.11600938]

>>11600931

I'm not going to give you a lecture on shit that is a prerequisite to posting in this thread. Go cry somewhere else

[Anonymous No.11600942]

>>11600930
You claimed it was true. The burden of proof is on you. If it's proven then show us a paper.

[Anonymous No.11600944]

>>11600930
>How are you all this stupid? The analytic continuation of the riemann is proven. Why do I have to re-prove it to you here?
You don't, you have to prove *your* analytic continuation is rigorous and says what you claim it says.

[Anonymous No.11600948]

>>11600938
You could just admit you don't know and your proof is bullshit. That is an option you know, instead of just deflecting every time you are asked to prove what you claim.

[Anonymous No.11600951]

>>11600922
>1+0=2
oooh I like that. Nice dubs btw

[Anonymous No.11600952]

>>11600948
>You could just admit you don't know and your proof is bullshit

So how was I proven wrong, again? Oh, yeah I didn't fetch a proof and re-prove it here.

If you really think this is a valid argument, then just fucking leave.

[Anonymous No.11600963]

>>11600948
He won't, he's certifiable. Here's some excerpts from one of his past "papers":

>I haven’t tried to crank out
any solutions to big problems like Navier-Stokes or the
Yang-Mills mass gap because I don’t have a chalk board
and my humongous, terrible handwriting is ill-suited to
solving big problems on paper.

>The simplicity and brevity
of the proof is surely embarrassing to many who are infatuated with their own genius but it is proof nonetheless.

>The fact is that even as a non-professional
amateur physicist, I am still the most successful living
physicist.

[Anonymous No.11600964]

>>11600938
>I'm not going to give you a lecture on shit that is a prerequisite to posting in this thread.
Didn't you ask an hour or two ago why the zeros of the zeta function have any relation to primes? Up here >>11600452

I think knowing is clearly a prerequisite to posting in an RH thread too.

[Anonymous No.11600969]

>>11600952
Glancing here casually, I think we are waiting for a proof that your formula for the analytic continuation is valid on the other half of the plane.

[Anonymous No.11600974]

>>11600854
>>11600964
>Didn't you ask an hour or two ago why the zeros of the zeta function have any relation to primes?

That was a hypothetical question to highlight the need for understanding of analytic continuation.

[Anonymous No.11600975]

>>11600963
Is this actually a repeat schizo? I don't recognize him.
I really don't think he's a loony. He's obviously started trolling to try and damage control hours(days?) ago. Real schizos don't start rabidly shitposting when they know they're backed into a corner, they start threatening to boil your grandchildren in diarrhea

[Anonymous No.11600977]

>>11600969
>, I think we are waiting for a proof that your formula for the analytic continuation

You are going to be Waiting a very long time if you are asking me to prove something that was already proven.

[Anonymous No.11600981]

>>11600975
He's not trying to hide who he is, he's a well known tin hat retard and has been for a decade.

[Anonymous No.11600984]

>>11600975
>Real schizos don't start rabidly shitposting when they know they're backed into a corner,

I don't feel I'm in a corner. I feel I'm surrounded by a pack of stupid haters that think they are being clever by asking me to fetch and regurgitate stuff for them

[Anonymous No.11600989]

>>11600969
>>11600977
>Implying this "formula for analytic continuation" exists in OP's mind
Formulas, who needs formulas? I have the ability to prove anything by ejaculating on it.

[Anonymous No.11600991]

>>11600977
I have a proof of the collatz conjecture.

It's a proven result that the sequence for all numbers at some point reaches 2. From here we can see that half of 2 is 1, and the proof is complete.

Where is that result proven? Find it yourself, lazy!

[Anonymous No.11600992]

>>11600984
>I'm surrounded by a pack of stupid haters that think they are being clever by asking me to fetch and regurgitate stuff for them
No, that's called being retarded.

[Anonymous No.11600994]

>>11600989

Riemann proved the analytic continuation of the zeta function a hundred years ago. If you don't believe in analytic continuation fuck off. This thread isn't about that.

[Anonymous No.11600997]

>>11600991

Are you so dumb you don't understand that analytic continuation and the Riemann Hypothesis are different things, and analytic continuation was proven a hundred years ago?

[Anonymous No.11600998]

>>11600984
>by asking me to fetch and regurgitate stuff for them
Do you really have to "fetch" the definition? You don't know it without looking it up?

[Anonymous No.11600999]

>>11600994
>Riemann proved the analytic continuation
No, he didn't. Stop saying that because it's false. Riemann analytically continued the function to see where the 0s were, that's how he came up with the hypothesis, Riemann didn't prove shit about the 0s, otherwise there wouldn't be a purpose for the hypothesis in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11601000]

>>11600992
>No, that's called being retarded

Show me where my proof in the OP is wrong

[Anonymous No.11601006]

>>11600999
>No, he didn't

Yes he did.

[Anonymous No.11601009]

>>11601000
Uhh, have you looked at this thread? If you want a refutation, this is a good place to start.

[Anonymous No.11601014]

>>11601006
You don't even know what analytic continuation is do you? Are you trolling? Is this an elaborate troll to get your laughs?

[Anonymous No.11601016]

>>11601009
>Uhh, have you looked at this thread?

I have, why? I don't see anyone pointing out a mistake.

[Anonymous No.11601017]

>>11601006
Then show us. If you can't then you can't assume its truth, and your entire proof is wrong.

>>11600963
Is this real? Where was it published?

[Anonymous No.11601019]

>>11601014
>You don't even know what analytic continuation is do you?

Yes, I do

[Anonymous No.11601022]

>>11601014
My personal theory is that OP is somewhere around the age of 12 or 13, genuinely thought he had a 200IQ proof for about 5 posts, and is now epic trolling to try and deflect his embarrassment

[Anonymous No.11601023]

>>11601019
Your proof says otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11601025]

>>11601017
>Then show us. If you can't then you can't assume its truth, and your entire proof is wrong.

I don't have to. Use this. Wwe.Google.com type in "Riemann zeta function analytic continuation"

[Anonymous No.11601027]

>>11601022
>>11601023

Prove where I am wrong.

[Anonymous No.11601028]

>>11601025
I went to Wwe.Google.com but all I see are a bunch of oily dudes in tights

[Anonymous No.11601032]

>>11601028

Lol. Now just fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11601038]

>>11601028
Mind pointing me towards that website? I love men, also I'm OP if you needed to know.

[Anonymous No.11601040]

>>11601027

Prove that this is wrong
>>11600991

It's difficult when the retard who wrote it doesn't give any citations isn't it?

[Anonymous No.11601045]

>>11601040
Proof? Maybe you should prove you can back your ass up on this cock, god knows it'd be more of use for your life than that shit in the OP.

[Anonymous No.11601047]

>>11601038
go find it your damn self

[Anonymous No.11601049]

>>11601040
>It's difficult when the retard who wrote it doesn't give any citations isn't it?

I don't care. Thanks for bumping my thread tho, while I'm waiting for someone intelligent to chat with

[Anonymous No.11601050]

>>11601045
>than that shit in the OP.

Prove its wrong

[Anonymous No.11601055]

>>11601049
Maybe you could bump your ass up and down for me, get some programming socks, yeah, I'd like that.

[Anonymous No.11601058]

>>11601050
Not until you can prove you're a semen sucker.

[Anonymous No.11601059]

>>11600952
>So how was I proven wrong, again?
You didn't prove the first line of your proof, so it's not valid.

>Oh, yeah I didn't fetch a proof and re-prove it here.
What do you mean? There is no existent proof that says what you claim.

[Anonymous No.11601060]

>>11601055
>Maybe you could bump your ass up and down for me, get some programming socks, yeah, I'd like that.

You know, I actually talked with alot of admirably intelligent people on /sci/ through the years. It's really gone in the toilet the last year or two. What happened?

[Anonymous No.11601064]

>>11601059

Google the following

"Riemann zeta function analytic continuation proof"

[Anonymous No.11601065]

>>11601060
>What happened?
You posted your shitty "proof" and it's continuing to stink up the catalogue. Much like how your boipuccy sticks, nice and good.

[Anonymous No.11601068]

>>11601049
No problem, the more people in here the more you get your abortion of a proof shredded.

Do you still believe that you're the greatest living physicist?

[Anonymous No.11601071]

>>11601065
>You posted your shitty "proof" and it's continuing to stink up the catalogue

It's your own fault, retard. Op can't bump his own thread and keep it on page 1.

[Anonymous No.11601072]

>>11601064
I did, I don't see the first line of your proof anywhere. Maybe you could just provide a link to it since you keep claiming it exists. Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude you've deflected this whole time because it doesn't exist and you can't provide it.

[Anonymous No.11601075]

>>11601068
>greatest living physicist
You know this guy isn't Tooker, right? Even Tooker holds himself to a massively higher standard than this.

[Anonymous No.11601077]

>>11600977
I am not asking you to reprove that the Eulerian product and zeta coincide on Re(s) > 1. However you are using the identity outside of its domain of validity. You have to detail how you can do it rigorously, because nobody in the world except you can see why.

[Anonymous No.11601078]

>>11601071
>Implying I have a problem with it personally
This thread is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.11601079]

>>11601068
>No problem, the more people in here the more you get your abortion of a proof shredded

No one here is saying shit about my proof. It's just trash talk and being retarded. I'd welcome an actual disproof.

[Anonymous No.11601082]

>>11601079
>Disprove a statement equivalent to the Riemann Hypothesis
Gee I wonder why no one will do this and instead asks you to prove your own claim?

[Anonymous No.11601083]

>>11601079
I bet you like trash talk, is that what you want me to do while I'm pounding your ass?

[Anonymous No.11601085]

>>11601072
>did, I don't see the first line of your proof anywhere.

Why would a proof for the Riemann Hypothesis be categorized as a proof for analytic continuation? Most you retards don't even realize they aren't the same thing.

[Anonymous No.11601091]

>>11601077
>You have to detail how you can do it rigorously, because nobody in the world except you can see why

Analytical continuation

[Anonymous No.11601093]

>>11601085
>Why would a proof for the Riemann Hypothesis be categorized as a proof for analytic continuation?
Huh? I don't see the proof that your analytic continuation is valid. Where is it?

[Anonymous No.11601094]

>>11601082
>Gee I wonder why no one will do this and instead asks you to prove your own claim?

The op is the proof. Most tards here don't realize that the riemann hypothesis isn't analytic continuation .

[Anonymous No.11601099]

>>11601079
>I'd welcome an actual disproof.
Unfortunately, you were already disproven 200 years ago. Since you've already been disproven, I don't have to disprove you again.

[Anonymous No.11601101]

>>11601091
Where is the proof it's valid?

[Anonymous No.11601103]

>>11601094
>The op is the proof.
So the proof is proof of it's own premise? That's called circular reasoning.

[Anonymous No.11601104]

>>11601093
>Huh? I don't see the proof that your analytic continuation is valid. Where is it?

I don't have to create my own personal proof for the analytic continuation of the Riemann zeta function. Where did this stupid idea come from? Riemann already proved the analytic continuation of the Riemann zeta function. BTW the Riemann Hypothesis is not Analytic continuation.

[Anonymous No.11601105]

>>11601101
Oh no, but you don't understand, RIEMANN, our god emperor, blessed be his name, proved that analytic continuation is valid. All hail Riemann, glory to his name, for I am not worthy.

[Anonymous No.11601111]

>>11601101
>Where is the proof it's valid?

On the internet. Google it.

[Anonymous No.11601113]

>>11601091
Analytic continuation says there is an analytic function g, defined over C \ {1} that coincides with zeta on Re(s) > 1. In particular, g is also equal to the Eulerian product on Re(s) > 1. But why is g equal to the Eulerian product on Re(s) = 1? Particularly, the Eulerian product is not defined on s = 1.

[Anonymous No.11601115]

>>11601104
HALLELUJIA brother, praise be his name, the holy trinity Gauss Grothendieck and Euler, 3 in one, under god Riemann. HALLELUJIA, say it with me brother.

[Anonymous No.11601117]

>>11601105

If you don't believe analytic continuation, fine,. Then my proof is wrong. The riemann hypothesis is meaningless and you can go to bed

[Anonymous No.11601123]

>>11601111
Fear the name of the Lord Riemann, who gave us his holy book Google, the word of god-Riemann put into the mouths of humans so that we may spread the good word of analytic continuation.

[Anonymous No.11601126]

am I witnessing the founding of the Church of Riemann

[Anonymous No.11601138]

>>11601104
>I don't have to create my own personal proof for the analytic continuation of the Riemann zeta function
I didn't say you did, I said you needed to provide proof for your analytic continuation.

[Anonymous No.11601141]

>>11601111
I did, I didn't find it. Since you claim it's easy to find, but I can't easily find it, and you refuse to provide it, the only logical conclusion is you're lying and your proof is trash. Thanks for admitting that.

[Anonymous No.11601143]

>>11601117
Oh but brother his word will give us meaning, for Riemann, the almighty, saviour of the zeta functions, blessed be his name, has sent his one and only hypothesis so that it may die for your primes. Passage 2 of Google heralds the good news.

[Anonymous No.11601144]

>>11601113
>Particularly, the Eulerian product is not defined on s = 1.

You are right. The eulerian product is not defined on Re{s}<=1. But the analytic continuation is, and the properties of the Eulerian product are used to make claims about the analytic continuation. For instance, the distribution of primes. I'm doing the same thing. I'm taking properties of the Eulerian product and extending them to the zeta function through analytic continuation.

[Anonymous No.11601147]

>>11601144
HALLELUJIA brother, spread the good word to the non-believers.

[Anonymous No.11601149]

>>11601141

You don't known anything about the riemann hypothesis

[Anonymous No.11601151]

>>11601138
>didn't say you did, I said you needed to provide proof for your analytic continuation

That's the point. It's not mine. I don't have to provide a personal proof to something that was proved a hundred years ago

[Anonymous No.11601154]

>>11601147

So you don't believe analytic continuation or the Riemann Hypothesis? Why?

[Anonymous No.11601155]

>>11601151
Year 0, the year Riemann sent his hypothesis, oh most holy of years. Thank Riemann we are saved in his name.

[Anonymous No.11601158]

>>11601154
Oh I believe, I have the greatest belief, for I have read the good word Google, and have dedicated my life to converting non-believers.

[Anonymous No.11601161]

>>11601155

Are you tooker again? You believe you disproved the Riemann Hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.11601163]

>>11601144
You are also using an algebraic expression on a domain where it is not valid (Re(s) = 1). Analytic continuation does not allow to do this. You have to use an expression of the analytic function that you use for the continuation.

[Anonymous No.11601166]

>>11601161
Riemann cast Tooker into the lake of fire, where eternal torment lies. Only by believing in Riemann's name can we save ourselves from the lake of fire and eternal torment by Tooker.

[Anonymous No.11601167]

>>11601158
>Oh I believe, I have the greatest belief, for I have read the good word Google, and have dedicated my life to converting non-believers

Kinda sad this thread was invaded by people who know so little they insist Riemann never proved analytic continuation of the Riemann zeta function.

[Anonymous No.11601178]

>>11601163
>You are also using an algebraic expression on a domain where it is not valid (Re(s) = 1). Analytic continuation does not allow to do this. You have to use an expression of the analytic function that you use for the continuation.

Let's explore this . The Eulerian product isn't defined s<=1. Ok. I agree. The Eulerian product is very interesting, because it's a product involving all prime numbers. This fact is used to imply things about the distribution of primes on the critical line. ---but wait--- the Eulerian product isn't defined on the critical line(s=1/2). Therefore the critical line and primes have no relation. Therefore the Riemann Hypothesis is meaningless. Do you agree?

[Anonymous No.11601181]

>>11601167
Allelujia brother, hopefully their eyes will be opened to the word of Riemann, so that they may finally see. They'll join with us in paradise with Riemann in the holy city.

[Anonymous No.11601184]

>>11601178
Yes. The Riemann Hypothesis is meaningless gibberish.
Thread over?

[Anonymous No.11601186]

>>11601178
>Riemann Hypothesis is meaningless.
Blasphemy, holding the lord Riemann's name in vain, repent thy sins.

[Anonymous No.11601190]

>>11601181
>>11601186

What's this schtick about? Recaptchas are getting crazy. I'll continue owning you faggots tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.11601205]

That's funny, I was convinced that this function was what defined the Riemann zeta across the full domain of the reals, not OP's.

[Anonymous No.11601244]

I think all of this math stuff is a gigantic prank and mathematicians just pretend to understand each other half of the time, but honest to god if some major result of math gets proven by an anonymous on 4chan it'd be one of the happiest days.

God speed to you OP.

[Anonymous No.11601348]

>>11601244
>all of this math stuff is a gigantic prank and mathematicians just pretend to understand each other half of the time
You're not too far off, really. Math is cool though

> if some major result of math gets proven by an anonymous on 4chan
I wouldn't call it RH major, but see this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/sci-fi-writer-greg-egan-and-anonymous-math-whiz-advance-permutation-problem-20181105/

original threads:
>>/sci/thread/3734198
>>/sci/thread/3751105

[Anonymous No.11601364]

>>11600922
I prefer 1x1=2

[Anonymous No.11601372]

>>11601244
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZzIvl1tbPo
The description of this video also has some nice links.

[El Arcón No.11601699]

>misread my comments
>para la oral?
>no!
I don't want to have to pay you and also try to read your comments. I want you to agree to sexually service me for money without resistance. What I am paying for if I'm still having to overcome your resistance? I want your willingness.

[Anonymous No.11601865]

>>11601178
I don't really care about prime numbers at the moment, this is neither the point nor what I asked (or actually, a lot of anons here). You are claiming to prove something, but you are using a wrong assumption, unless you manage to prove why you can use the Eulerian product where you are using it.

[Anonymous No.11602311]

>>11601205

Ok, now show what this function has to do with prime numbers.

[Anonymous No.11602324]

>>11601865
>I don't really care about prime numbers at the moment

You'd better care, Because implicit in the Riemann Hypothesis is a link between zeros on the critical line and prime numbers. If you are willing to throw out this link, then I'll concede my proof is wrong.

[Anonymous No.11602330]

>>11601865
>You are claiming to prove something, but you are using a wrong assumption,

Im showing you I'm using the assumptions implicit in the question. I don't care to prove things that Riemann already considers fact.

[Anonymous No.11602348]

>>11601184

I'd rather keep this bumped for the slim chance someone worth chatting with arrives

[Anonymous No.11602517]

>>11593219
Why do people still take this kind of bait?

[Anonymous No.11602546]

>>11602517

Prove it wrong

[Anonymous No.11602548]

>>11602348
Characterize someone worth chatting with, please.

[Anonymous No.11602553]

>>11602548
Someone who will just accept my proof without asking me to prove the first line.

[Anonymous No.11602561]

>>11602546
The analytic continuation does not work as you want past re(s)<=1. Like everyone already says

[Anonymous No.11602568]

>>11602553
Someone who will accept your proof? That is a bit of a giveaway, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.11602572]

>>11602568
If you couldn't tell, I'm a delusional narcissist and rely on circular logic.

[Anonymous No.11602619]

>>11602568
Given you are already on /sci/, your info is somewhat redundant.

[Anonymous No.11602624]

>>11602572
At least OP admits he is a massive collosal faggot. Thread over boys

[Anonymous No.11602686]

>>11593219
What kind of number is s, is it any complex number? What happens when you laplace transform complex values functions don't you get sins and cosines/oscillators? Need to show those oscillators are critically damped or over damped to avoid diverging.

[Anonymous No.11602731]

>>11602548

Someone who understands the Riemann Hypothesis would be a great start.

[Anonymous No.11602737]

>>11602561
>The analytic continuation does not work as you want past re(s)<=1

Yes it does.

[El Arcón No.11602745]

>>11600737
>Because Riemann wrote rigorous proofs
When I say stuff like that, my rhetorical counterparties always say, "Nuh-uh! Riemann wasn't doing rigorous analysis because the real numbers weren't rigorously defined until 1872 at the earliest."

>>11600963
>>11601017
I'm the one who wrote all of that, me: Tooker, not OP of this thread. I wrote it in other threads, not in any paper.

>>11601075
What do you mean "even" me?

>>11601161
That person is not me and I do believe I have done what you say.

[Anonymous No.11602750]

>>11602686

Yes, you are correct. When an function has a Laplace transform whose pokes are imaginary they do oscillate in the time domain. I don't prove they are damped however, but I do use this property of Laplace transforms. I sum up the entire time series to make the argument that the series is bound or not and use that to imply the locations of the zeros on the real axis.

[Anonymous No.11602757]

>>11602745
>That person is not me and I do believe I have done what you say.

Present it here. I'm interested.

[El Arcón No.11602805]

>>11602757
here:
>>11597353
>>11595664

[Anonymous No.11602813]

>>11599928
Those aren't complex numbers. Infinity isn't a number defined by a Dedekind cut and therefore not a real number and 0.5 is not an ordinal and therefore not a valid index.

If you disagree about infinity/2 in the interval sense then you're disregarding mathematical conventions.

Did you try to get a positive response? If your paper is as important for mathematics as it should be if you actually proved the Riemann Hypothesis, then I think you would put a little more effort than one submission in there.

After looking at the Clay Institute submission rules, they seem way too strict, but is it impossible to publish your proof in an actual mathematical paper? I think you should go for it if you're so convinced of your own ability.

Also desu, your proof just seems a bit like "infinity hurr durr" but I won't claim anything since I don't understand it completely. Just saying.

[Anonymous No.11602844]

>>11600558
Now I don't know about that guy, but the Zeta Function certainly has an interesting definition and looking at its 0s is already a nice entertaining task.

[Anonymous No.11602860]

>>11600634
>but the zeros of the integral have no relevance to the primes
>Von Koch (1901) proved that the Riemann hypothesis implies the "best possible" bound for the error of the prime number theorem
sure dude

[Anonymous No.11602877]

>>11600452
I don't think it's that hard. You can derive properties about the factorial by analysing its integral form (the shifted gamma function). However to do this, you might need to look at non-integer values, for which the factorial function is not defined.

Basically you look at the extended concept to derive properties of the limited concept. However when looking at the extended concept, you must use the extended concepts definition, not the limited one. That's what you didn't do.

[Anonymous No.11602880]

>>11602860
>>Von Koch (1901) proved that the Riemann hypothesis implies the "best possible" bound for the error of the prime number theorem

Give the name of the paper. How did he make a link to primes without the Eulerian product?

[Anonymous No.11602904]

>>11602880
>Give the name of the paper.
Google it.

[Anonymous No.11602905]

>>11602880
https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/BF02403071

[Anonymous No.11602907]

>>11602904
Wikipedia literally has a section for that. The guy claims to have proven the hypothesis and was unable to look up fucking Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis#Distribution_of_prime_numbers

[Anonymous No.11602950]

>>11602731
Someone who understands RH, and also doesn't know what an analytic continuation is, would seem an even better start.

[Anonymous No.11602957]

>>11602950
I don't think you can really understand RH without understanding analytic continuation. Obviously one can state the hypothesis but I doubt you would really understand it.

[Anonymous No.11602973]

>>11602957
In that case I doubt that OP will find someone qualified to discuss with him.

[Anonymous No.11602974]

>>11593393

It is not difficult to get published. It's free and instant. You can literally just post this to the arxiv immediately.

[Anonymous No.11602992]

>>11602974
I would seriously suggest Universe:
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe
click on the "submit to Universe" link, pay the submission fee, upload your paper, and there you go, you are now a published author.

[Anonymous No.11602994]

>>11602737
But it's not equal to the Eulerian product you colossal faggot

[Anonymous No.11603016]

>>11599928
view >>11602974

[Anonymous No.11603020]

>>11602994
Seriously, Anon, don't you understand our point? Riemann proved that there was an analytic continuation and he provided one, however the one you provided is different. Therefore you most prove that yours shares the same properties, which you just assumed.

[Anonymous No.11603027]

>>11602994
Anon: I am pretty sure that OP has realized this already. He is desolate and lonely and only hangs on here for his sad lulz.

[Anonymous No.11603028]

>>11602844
Based Ted

[Anonymous No.11603029]

>>11603020
Low effort attempt OP you are a faggot

>>11603027
We need Jannies and mods to do their work

[Anonymous No.11603031]

>>11603029
Low effort attempt at what? I'm not even OP. I literally just solidified the comment I replied to.

[Anonymous No.11603037]

>>11603031
Ah my bad then. But still we have too many schizos posting. We need the mods to do their work

[Anonymous No.11603045]

>>11593219
>https://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe
>click on the "submit to Universe" link, pay the submission fee, upload your paper, and there you go, you are now a published author.
I noticed that Wildberger publishes in that journal. It must be pretty high tier. Go for it OP!

[Anonymous No.11603052]

>>11603045
Yep. And please keep us updated.

[Anonymous No.11603058]

>>11603052
I hope he posts the referee reports. It should be just a couple of days from now.

[El Arcón No.11603074]

>>11602813
>Those aren't complex numbers. Infinity isn't a number defined by a Dedekind cut
I think without even getting into the technical specifications of what real numbers are, it is commonly accepted that real numbers predate the 19th century publication of Dedekind. For instance, the infinite decimal form of real numbers is from the 16th century, and real numbers are usually thought to predate that too.

>If you disagree about infinity/2 in the interval sense then you're disregarding mathematical conventions.
Certain of them, yes. That is the whole point of the program.

[El Arcón No.11603085]

>>11602813
>is it impossible to publish your proof in an actual mathematical paper?
If I'm connected to a fake internet in Antarctica, or something like that, such that I'm locked into the retard group with no way to communicate with the smart group, then it may be. It is VERY WEIRD to me that my theory doesn't have one of these: (((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube))).))). There's a lot of things that could make it impossible for me to get published in a professional journal, many of which probably escape my understanding. You would have to ask a publisher about the feasibility of publishing my paper to get a real answer about why or why not. As you probably know, and pic related incidentally ((( >>11603074
))), my preferred publisher is viXra and that probably isn't a "qualifying outlet."

[El Arcón No.11603103]

>>11602813
>I think you would put a little more effort than one submission in there.
I have had about ten independent papers rejected by arXiv, or thereabouts, and plenty of different journals too.

>Also desu, your proof just seems a bit like "infinity hurr durr" but I won't claim anything since I don't understand it completely
I think if geometric infinity has its limit definition as 1/x with x->0, then you can tell by the "invert and multiply" rule for fractions that it is an identical zero. However, for uniformity of depth, I added the axioms for geometric infinity in Section 5 already, and I will upload it with v3. However, I think you're talking about section 8.3, and I disproved it in Section 8.2 already. I will tidy it up a little more, but RH is not the main topic of the paper. It's an application included for breadth.

Also, I think my negation of RH here
>https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030
is good to go now that I changed "at least one" to "more than one."

Also, I think the implication of the proposition in this paper
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0236
is interesting enough that it ought to be publishable in some professional journal.

[Anonymous No.11603118]

>>11603016
Tooky's tried to get his stuff on arXiv, but they won't accept it

[El Arcón No.11603133]

>>11603103
>I have had about ten independent papers rejected by arXiv, or thereabouts, and plenty of different journals too.
Or... the people who got me kicked out of college to begin with also block my career-building activities on an ongoing basis.

[Anonymous No.11603140]

I have another question.
You transform [math]1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}p^{-s}[/math]
by using the logarithm, therefore we will arrive at [math]1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}(e^{ln(p)})^{-s}[/math] which is then equal to [math]1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}e^{-s\cdot ln(p)}[/math]

However you claim it to be equal to [math]1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}e^{-s+ln(p)}[/math]. This seems to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.11603145]

>>11603140
fuck, sorry for messing it up, but my point still stands. why is there a plus instead of a multiplication?

[Anonymous No.11603146]

>>11603058
I don't know. Somehow it feels like OP prefers to publish on viXra more than in a real journal. He may count, and rightly so, on viXra taking any garbage in. Whereas an actual journal might get critical about a paper. As we see from this thread, this OP does not appreciate that one bit.

[El Arcón No.11603147]

>>11603133

[Anonymous No.11603160]

>>11603140

>readable version (hopefully)

I have another question.
You transform
[math]1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}p^{-s}[/math]
by using the logarithm, therefore we will arrive at
[math]1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}(e^{ln(p)})^{-s}[/math]
which is then equal to
[math]1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}e^{-s\cdot ln(p)}[/math]

However you claim it to be equal to
[math]1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}e^{-s+ln(p)}[/math]
This seems to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.11603165]

>>11603160
ok no idea what I did wrong with the LaTeX, but please reply. This seems to be a fundamental error either in your proof or my fundamental math skills.

[Anonymous No.11603173]

>>11602994
>But it's not equal to the Eulerian product you colossal faggot

They are equal over a subdomain namely re(s)>1. The dirichlet series and eularian product diverge otherwise. I know this. What is your point?

[Anonymous No.11603179]

>>11603147
mah nigga, riemann disproved confirmed, dubs don't lie

[Anonymous No.11603183]

>>11603165
4chan LaTeX just breaks if there are too many [math]s. The only way to fix it is by using lots of \text{}

[Anonymous No.11603184]

>>11603160
That's actually a * not a +. The compression corrupted it, sorry.

[Anonymous No.11603195]

>>11603184
You still wrote t-ln(p) the next time this appears though.

[Anonymous No.11603206]

>>11603195

That's how the Laplace transform works.

[Anonymous No.11603212]

>>11603206
You mean the inverse Laplace transform?

[El Arcón No.11603223]

>>11603146
>Whereas an actual journal might get critical about a paper.
That would be a great professional result for me. It would be a big step up from the "your bullshit paper is not appropriate" response I usually get.

I would greatly prefer to have my work rightly featured in esteemed professional venues than to have it only on the derisively mocked viXra. If I could get published in a venue like that, then I could probably get my scientific career back on track, or at least a decent Patreon type of thing, like people buying my book. If I could get published, and certainly my results are worthy of publication in the objective reality that the biggest heretics in all of Christendom are supposed to be simulating, then that would help remedy this persistent state of indigent poverty in which I find myself.

>>11603183
based

[Anonymous No.11603229]

>>11603212
>You mean the inverse Laplace transform?

Yes

[Anonymous No.11603232]

>>11603212
Ok looking at it the step actually seems right. You should fix the * / + thing though

[Anonymous No.11603237]

>>11603232

It's an *. This implies multiplication. It's not a mistake. There is no + there to change It's just poor image fidelity and leaping to conclusions on your part

[Anonymous No.11603245]

>>11603237
Then increase the image quality. Or use \cdot

[Anonymous No.11603252]

Also, you misspelled "SquareFree" as "SqaureFree" multiple times

[Anonymous No.11603258]

>>11603223
*~Tooky called me based~*

[Anonymous No.11603264]

>>11603252

I realize that. That is a legit typo that was copy pasted a few times. I do mean squarefree

[Anonymous No.11603269]

Now, I'm actually very interested in your proof, but the problem is that I'm not very much formally educated.
What do you mean by "Actually convolution" above your product symbol?
More importantly, where's the factor of 1/(2pi*i) and the integral part? (assuming you oriented it after this https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/978a0327d5ccc3c7401cee9acff9fc7474bd1a7c))

You can also just tell me to fuck off and learn it myself but I doubt there'll be any more people here interested in discussing the details with you.

[Anonymous No.11603326]

>>11603269
>Now, I'm actually very interested in your proof, but the problem is that I'm not very much formally educated.

I hayce a master's in science from the University of California. My focus was material physics and quantum physics. What are your credentials?

>What do you mean by "Actually convolution" above your product symbol?

There exists no symbol for an infinite convolution that I am aware of. I just used the product symbol and made a not it's actually convolution.

>More importantly, where's the factor of 1/(2pi*i) and the integral part? (assuming you oriented it after this

I don't understand what you mean. Are you asking why I'm not formally writing out the definition of the inverse Laplace transform? In that case. I am just being lazy I guess. You can look up a table of Laplace transforms if you don't believe me.

[Anonymous No.11603352]

>>11603326
The talk about credentials is pointless. I know the basics about integrals and the transformations, but nothing more.

Sorry, I just don't understand why convolutions suddenly came into play here.

About the integral, as I see it, you have just written out the integrand and not actually the integral. Or are you saying that this is already the inversely transformed version?

[Anonymous No.11603364]

>>11603352
>Sorry, I just don't understand why convolutions suddenly came into play here

Fair question. Multiplication in the frequency domain is convolution in the time domain. So an infinite product turns into an infinite convolution. This is a consequence of integration by parts. And the Fourier transform has a similar property

[El Arcón No.11603376]

>>11603232
I agree that it didn't follow the formatting pattern in the body of the text because I hastily uploaded up without doing another five readthroughs. However, I think the math is fine.

[Anonymous No.11603378]

>>11603364
Thanks, now I understand that. So when integrating an infinite product, it turns into an infinite convolution, which you tried to write down in some way. That's also why the integral vanishes, yes?

[Anonymous No.11603387]

>>11603352
>Or are you saying that this is already the inversely transformed version

In the paper, the reciprocal of the zeta function is the frequency domain function, so I go about finding the inverse Laplace transform, then imply things about the zeta function from properties of it. Namely the fact that it is bound

[Anonymous No.11603393]

>>11603387
Ok, I think I get that step now. Another question which probably seems stupid to you, what happens to the integral bounds? Shouldn't you evaluate your newly found infinite convolution at the two bounds now?

Sorry if this turned into r/explainlikeim5 but thanks for actually helping with understaning your proof

[Anonymous No.11603422]

Okay you know what? The step seems right. You aren't my teacher/professor or anything, this isn't your job. I'll just continue with the next steps.

[El Arcón No.11603423]

I have a few proofs that are independent. I don't just have one proof.

[Anonymous No.11603429]

>>11603393
>what happens to the integral bounds? Shouldn't you evaluate your newly found infinite convolution at the two bounds now?

I don't understand what integral bounds you are talking about. You mean in the implied integral of the Inverse Laplace transform? The entire Inverse transform is applied before the infinite convolution.

[Anonymous No.11603447]

>>11603429
Yes, I talked about that implied integral.
I won't bother try to understand the rest, but it seems you just transformed the function into some weird form of the möbius function and then showed it doesn't diverge.

Really you should try to submit this to some journals and push for some clarification whenever they disregard your proof. I think this would help you either in understanding why the proof doesn't work of in making your work known to more than 4chan.

[Anonymous No.11603468]

>>11597353
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.11603488]

>>11603447
>you just transformed the function into some weird form of the möbius function and then showed it doesn't diverge

You characterized my approach well. You can verify the Mobius function with a pen and paper in a few minutes if you have some familiarity with convolutions and Dirac Delta functions.

[Anonymous No.11603527]

>>11593219
I don't any proof, just successive suppositions and no demonstration of anything whatsover. Show the actual computations and not some bullshit dimwit engineer blabbering.

[Anonymous No.11603538]

>>11603527
>Show the actual computations

I like you. I did alot of numerical experiments based on the op. What exactly are you interested in? I'll even run the computation myself and deliver results.

[Anonymous No.11603564]

>>11603538
I'm not talking about numerical testing. The RM is still being researched because no one found an numerical exception, like any other standing conjecture. I meant: show that when you say "if we assume X then obviously Y" then that actually is the case. I'm taking going to take a look at the gibberish you wrote in a few minutes to see if I can actually disprove what you stated before you actually prove it.

[Anonymous No.11603580]

I'm not extremely familiar with the subject of the zeta function, but after reading a bit of wikipedia, it's quite easy to see that >>11594499 is right.

>>11594771
You are an idiot. What you supposedly need to show that converges is not the thing that was already shown to converge a 100 years ago.

[Anonymous No.11603595]

>>11595766
>I'm way ahead of you. I've been doing numerical experiments just in case there is a scenario like you claim


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11603613]

>>11603595
How is this implying he is a brainlet? Obviously it's not rigorous but it definitely supports his idea that his formula does work for all s.

[Anonymous No.11603615]

>>11603613
No, it does not. The RM works numerically, or else it would have already been disproved, so he found nothing.

[Anonymous No.11603666]

>>11603564
>I can actually disprove what you stated before you actually prove it.

Go ahead

[Anonymous No.11603668]

>>11593393
>I actually don't care, who gets the money

Inb4 a psychopath steals the proof, gets the prize money, and builds loli rape dungeon.

Maybe I've exaggerated, but not taking credit for an accomplishment lets an unscrupulous person do so. This should go without thinking to someone intelligent enough to solve a problem with a million dollar prize. So you're either retarded or 100% amoral. The latter would make you a psychopath enabler, which means you should be gassed regardless of whether you've solved the problem or not.

[Anonymous No.11603672]

>>11603580
>You are an idiot. What you supposedly need to show that converges is not the thing that was already shown to converge a 100 years ago.

Ok. Clarify what I must do.

[Anonymous No.11603675]

>>11603615
>The RM works numerically

That's an odd statement. What do you mean? Did someone built a computer that calculated every point of the zeta function and confirmed it's not zero off the critical line?

[Anonymous No.11603687]

>>11603564

What happened to this? It's only several lines of simple math. It's been an hour. Where is your disproof? BTW this goes for everyone. I posted this days ago. For something everyone dismisses as retarded gibberish, it's certainly hard to point out a flaw.

[Anonymous No.11603736]

>>11602330
You are using a wrong interpretation of an established fact to prove a mathematical statement.

>>11602324
No, still don't care. The relevance of why you would prove/disprove the statement plays no role here: you tried to prove a mathematical claim using a wrong assumption. You said your proof is wrong; in fact, the proof might be right, but it proves a void statement because it relies on a wrong assumption. Overall, you proved that if the Eulerian product extends the zeta function on the line Re(s)=1/2, then all the zeroes of the zeta function are on this line.

You admitted in this post that your proof was wrong, which I interpret as you recognizing your result has no significance. This bait is over. /thread

[Anonymous No.11603764]

>>11603736
>You admitted in this post that your proof was wrong, which I interpret as you recognizing your result has no significance

Im not really interested in playing semantics and your reading comprehension seems very poor. I'm not saying I'm wrong. I'm hypothetically discussion the consequences of doing that low IQ posters keep demanding I do . I'm continually being asked to prove the riemann hypothesis while ignoring assumptions in the question itself. I'm continually pointing out the flaws In This line of argumentation. I'm not saying I am wrong.

[Anonymous No.11603768]

>>11603736
>You are using a wrong interpretation of an established fact to prove a mathematical statement.

Can you demonstrate this?

[Anonymous No.11604273]

Goodbye thread.