RH Thread

[El Arcón No.12050564]

RH is false. Even though infinity hat is not a real number, infinity hat minus a natural number is a real number. This is like how 7 is not an element of S={1,2,3,4,5} but if we define x=7-4, then x is an element of S and it doesn't matter that 7 isn't in S.

[Anonymous No.12050879]

>rh garbage
into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.12050886]

>>12050564
Even I know that infinity minus 1 is either infinity or meaningless.
Thanks for outing yourself as a pleb Tookieboy

[Anonymous No.12050896]

>>12050564
>Tooker
Dropped.

[Anonymous No.12050913]

>>12050564
I thought you had accepted that mathematicians only care about solutions to the Riemann Zeta Function involving real numbers in the neighborhood of 0. Do we have to go over this again?

[El Arcón No.12051164]

>>12050913
I care about the problem that Clay has a $1M bounty on, which I solved.

Problems of the Millennium: the Riemann Hypothesis
https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/official_problem_description.pdf

[Anonymous No.12051217]

>>12051164
They explicitly ask for non-trivial solutions off the critical strip. There are trivial solutions such as your solutions in the neighborhood of infinity but they are trivial. You can read the whole article and see how all the discussions and methods talked about in the description are explicitly for real numbers in the neighborhood of 0.

[El Arcón No.12051272]

>>12051217
You are wrong. You can read just the first page and see that the trivial zeros are the negative even integers. Maybe you should make our ow bounty on your own version of the problem instead of lying about the problem Clay cares about?

>are explicitly for real numbers in the neighborhood of 0.
If it says it explicitly, then post the explicit text from this short PDF. (it doesn't say it. Unlike you, I've read the whole thing.)

[El Arcón No.12051278]

>>12051217
You are wrong. You can read just the first page and see that the trivial zeros are the negative even integers. Maybe you should make your own bounty on your own version of the problem instead of lying about the problem Clay cares about?

>are explicitly for real numbers in the neighborhood of 0.
If it says it explicitly, then post the explicit text from this short PDF. (It doesn't say it. Unlike you, I've read the whole thing.)

[Anonymous No.12051340]

>>12051278
Look at this passage where it is explicitly claimed that the zeroes of interest are the ones that would be useful for Riemann's formula.

In Riemann's formula (pic related) the zeroes are used as exponents. It is clear that real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity do not have exponentiation compatible with this formulation. Ergo, you get no money. In fact, have you even defined exponentiation for your infinity hat numbers?

[Anonymous No.12051346]

>Tooker
Shut up racist. You literally called a Nubian queen the n word to her face. Disgusting. Stay blacklisted by mathematical communities.

[El Arcón No.12051496]

>>12051340
> It is clear that real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity do not have exponentiation compatible with this formulation.
That is not clear to me. If you think it is clear, then you should demonstrate your claim and eternally BTFO me. In fact, since you say it is clear but do not make it clear, I think you know as well as I that it is not clear. What is the clear problem in your opinion?

>Ergo, you get no money.
This has nothing to do with the quality of my result. It's mostly because the people in my family set me up for total failure by going on such a long USA-sponsored murder spree that it will always be in the interest of the USA to fuck me out of any success I might strive toward so as to avoid my becoming a traditionally public person that could call public attention to that murder spree.

[El Arcón No.12051498]

>>12051346
That was a white man donning black face so as to act like a baboon in public. I called a white man a nigger in that video.

[Anonymous No.12051504]

>>12051496
>then you should demonstrate your claim and eternally BTFO me

First of all, the number of zeroes in the neighborhood of infinity is uncountably infinite. This means that Riemann's sum would be undefined if such roots were real. How do you call it when an argument contradicts a statement that is known to be true?

Beyond that [math] x^{\infinity - b} [/math] is just infinity for x larger than 1 so again Riemann's formula would be undefined. How do you call it when an argument contradicts a statement that is known to be tre?

[El Arcón No.12051508]

>>12051346
That was a white man donning black face so as to act like a baboon in public. I was interacting with a white man in that video. The white man was holding the camera. They dress up to act like that in public because they don't want people to know that it is white behavior.

[Anonymous No.12051511]

is this THE john tooker?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwP_mU-iOsk

[El Arcón No.12051524]

>>12051504
>This means that Riemann's sum would be undefined if such roots were real
I don't see that. Why do you make claims but never support them?

>so again Riemann's formula would be undefined.
I think you are wrong. Why do you think it would be undefined?

>How do you call it when an argument contradicts a statement that is known to be tre?
That's called a "contradiction."

"How" do you call it when someone says something is true and expects you to believe it without supporting the claim?

[El Arcón No.12051529]

>>12051511
That's a white man mocking me in that video, in case you are confused.

[Anonymous No.12051533]

>>12051524
>I don't see that. Why do you make claims but never support them?
Do you even know basic math? X larger than 1 to infinity is always infinity so you'd have that Riemann's function is always infinite which is a contradiction as you can calculate J(x) to their precise finite values. Maybe you should write a paper about how you define exponentiation for infinity hat to resolve this dispute.

>That's called a "contradiction."
Indeed.

>"How" do you call it when someone says something is true and expects you to believe it without supporting the claim?
I call it assuming a level of basic competency when talking with someone who did Ph.D. studies in physics (even if he was kicked out for raping two girls)

>>12051529
That's a black woman.

[El Arcón No.12051555]

Obviously I am dealing with a real expert here:
>>12051504
Likely this is the spokesperson for a group who commissioned a group of professionals to criticize my work, which they showed to the critics, and now he wants me to criticize the work of my critics without showing their work to me.

Furthermore, it is known the number of primes less a number in the neighborhood of infinity is equal to infinity. There are an infinite number of primes, and they are all in the neighborhood of the origin. Therefore, all I have to do is show that "Riemann's formula" diverges and I get the right answer.

[Anonymous No.12051556]

This guy is the Terry Davis of the science world.

[Anonymous No.12051566]

>>12051555
>Therefore, all I have to do is show that "Riemann's formula" diverges and I get the right answer.
You'd have to show that Riemann's formula diverges for all x larger than 1 which is well known to be false retardo.

[El Arcón No.12051567]

>>12051533
No, that is a white man holding the camera in the store and it is a white man mocking me in the youtube video. Probably that's two Israelis. Unlike me, both of them viscerally hate black people and want to exterminate them in full. These are what are called "zetas" which I call mutant aliens, and I was well acquainted with both of them long before these videos showed up on the internet. Trust me, they are exactly what I said they are, and worse!

>Riemann's function is always infinite
I think that is the correct answer since there are an infinite number of primes less than any number in the neighborhood of infinity. Why do you think infinity is the wrong output for the formula? In your opinion, how many prime numbers are there altogether?

>Riemann's function is always infinite which is a contradiction
What contradiction are you referring to?

>write a paper about how you define exponentiation for infinity hat to resolve this dispute.
I already did this. Furthermore, I use the exponential notation in the ordinary way.

[Anonymous No.12051574]

infinity hat is not a real number
infinity hat - a natural number = still not a real number

that was hard

[El Arcón No.12051583]

>>12051566
>You'd have to show that Riemann's formula diverges
You yourself said that right here: >>12051533
>X larger than 1 to infinity is always infinity so you'd have that Riemann's function is always infinite which is a contradiction.

That's not a contradiction. That's exactly the correct answer because there are an infinite number or primes in the neighborhood of the origin, and every number in the neighborhood of the origin is less than any positive number in the neighborhood of infinity.

So, if the formula returns infinity, which means that the formula does not converge in R, that is the opposite of a contradiction. That is exactly the desired behavior.

[Anonymous No.12051586]

>>12051567
Riemann's function is an arithmetic function with finite values. Look it up.

>>12051567
>I already did this. Furthermore, I use the exponential notation in the ordinary way.
What is [math] 2^{\infty - 1} ? [/math]

[El Arcón No.12051604]

Even though [math]\widehat\infty[/math] is not a real number, the number
[eqn] x= \widehat\infty-b [/eqn]
is a real number for a certain class of b. This is like how 7 is not an element of
[eqn]S=\{1,2,3,4,5\}[/eqn]
but if we define
[eqn]z=7-4[/eqn]
then z is an element of [math]S[/math] and it doesn't matter that 7 isn't in it.

[Anonymous No.12051625]

>>12051604
No

[El Arcón No.12051638]

>>12051586
>Riemann's function is an arithmetic function with finite values.
You were the one who already told me that is is infinite in the neighborhood of infinity. i can see it right here in this thread. Furthermore, the formula is not very useful for counting primes if it tells you that the the total number of all primes is a finite number. This "how we would call" a contradiction because it is known that there are an infinite number of primes.
[eqn] 2^{\infty-1}=\infty \quad\text{and}\quad 2^{\widehat\infty-1}=\infty[/eqn]
too, pic related.

[Anonymous No.12052322]

>>12051638
>You were the one who already told me that is is infinite in the neighborhood of infinity.

My point was that IF your zeros were valid then J(x) would be infinite for all x > 1. But this is a contradiction because J(x) is an arithmetic function defined for all positive x without issue. It is just that your 'zeroes' don't actually exist/ don't count towards the Clay prize.

>Furthermore, the formula is not very useful for counting primes if it tells you that the the total number of all primes is a finite number
It only counts all primes below a fixed bound. For example, all primes smaller than 100,000.