Let's have a real discussion about the Riemann Hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.12088549]

Can it be proven or disproven?

[Anonymous No.12088559]

hopefully an IQ or race thread died for this

[Anonymous No.12088578]

His definition of "real numbers in the neighbourhood of infinity" seems kinda whack

[El Arcón No.12088600]

>>12088578
What about it seems whack to you?

[Anonymous No.12088626]

>>12088549
Very low iq question anon. If someone knows it's provable then it's proved. Sadly this board now is full of questions like this.

[Anonymous No.12088725]

>>12088600
for starters it's not in any way equivalent to the reals, or a neighborhood of reals centered around infinity.

[Anonymous No.12088731]

>>12088626
Leave this board(and raise its IQ)

[El Arcón No.12088811]

>>12088725
That is demonstrably false. It is equivalent to the reals in the way that [math]\mathbb{R}=(-\infty,\infty)[/math] allows us to write
[eqn] \forall n\in\mathbb{N}\quad\exists (-n,n)\subset\mathbb{R}\quad\exists(\widehat\infty-n,\infty)\subset\mathbb{R} ~~. [/eqn]
Now I have refuted your claim "not in any way." Do you have anything else to say?

[Anonymous No.12088964]

>>12088811
schizo BTFO by typesetting

[Anonymous No.12088991]

>>12088578
he thinks that putting a hat over a symbol denoting some object magically changes properties of said object. of course it's whack.

[El Arcón No.12089009]

>>12088964
"That is demonstrably false. It is equivalent to the reals in the way that [math]\mathbb{R}=(-\infty,\infty)[/math] allows us to write
[eqn] \forall n\in\mathbb{N}\quad\exists (-n,n)\subset\mathbb{R}\quad\exists(\widehat\infty-n,\infty)\subset\mathbb{R} [/eqn]
Now I have refuted your claim "not in any way." Do you have anything else to say?"

>>12088991
do you mean like how 1 is a scalar but [math] \hat1 [/math] is a vector? That's not magic. It's called algebra: the study of mathematical symbols and the rules for manipulating them. However, I would not be surprised to learn that algebra is like magic to you.

[El Arcón No.12089014]

>>12089009
not sure why that TeX won't display.

[Anonymous No.12089015]

>>12089009
>do you mean like how 1 is a scalar but 1^1^ is a vector?
no

[El Arcón No.12089021]

>>12089015
How did you mean it in a way other than the way putting a hat on a scalar turns it into something different?

[Anonymous No.12089029]

>>12089021
so [math]\hat{1}[/math] is not a real number?

[Anonymous No.12089043]

>>12088811
You still didn't define [math]\widehat\infty[/math] and you still didn't show how you construct reals using this esoteric object.

[El Arcón No.12089056]

>>12089029
it's not.

>>12089043
It's defined in the sentence after Equation (2). I don't show how to construct the reals and neither do I show how to tend a banana plantation. I don't show those things because this paper isn't about them.

[Anonymous No.12089113]

>>12089056
>it's not.
but [math]\hat{\infty}-1[/math] is? what about [math]\hat{\infty}-\hat{1}[/math]?

[El Arcón No.12089189]

>>12089113
(INFHAT - 1) is a real number
(INFHAT - 1HAT) is an undefined expression if you have defined 1HAT in the same way as me.
What do you mean by [math]\hat1[/math]? I introduced it is as a unit vector pointing in the direction of the real axis, as it is usually defined.

[Anonymous No.12089207]

>>12089189
>(INFHAT - 1) is a real number
what is its inverse ?
also another question, what is (INFHAT - 1) + 1 ?

[El Arcón No.12089248]

>>12089207
If you can prove that all real numbers have an inverse, then I will look at the issue with the inverse of that specific number. If you can't prove it, then I will will not entertain your red herring.

Due to the associativity of addition, which is an axiom I use, we have
[eqn] (\widehat\infty-1)+1=\widehat\infty-(1-1) [/eqn]

[Anonymous No.12089274]

>>12089248
Is [math]\widthat\infty - 1[/math] a non-zero element? If yes, then it must have an inverse or else your construction doesn't produce real numbers, or even a field.

[Anonymous No.12089281]

>>12089248
>If you can prove that all real numbers have an inverse, then I will look at the issue with the inverse of that specific number. If you can't prove it, then I will will not entertain your red herring.
so real numbers aren't a field? do you think riemann worked in a number system which wasn't a field?


>∞ˆ−(1−1)
why is this not [math]\hat{\infty}-0[/math] ? does [math]\hat{\infty}-0 = \hat{\infty}[/math] hold ?

[El Arcón No.12089335]

>>12089274
>then it must have an inverse
I see you have directly claimed this now after previously implying it, but you have not proven it. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain your obvious red herring. If you prove that the inverse must exist, then I will entertain your inquiry about inverses.

>>12089281
>do you think riemann worked in a number system which wasn't a field?
Since the field axioms didn't get introduced until ~50 years after Riemann published, and they didn't become popular until many years later, I am 100% certain that Riemann did not use the field axioms. Furthermore, if he had formulated the field axioms on his own as the definition of a number system separate from the Euclidean axioms, then I suppose he would have published them, or at least mentioned them, but would never have used them without mentioning them.

>why is this not
That is INFHAT-0. By the additive absorptive property of zero, INFHAT-0=INFHAT also holds.

[El Arcón No.12089373]

BTW, you can see from the two column format of OP paper that this is a physics paper (since the author is a physicist too.) We still use the Euclidean axioms as the definition of R.

Obviously this other person is about to say, "Then it is not closed under addition then!" I will say, "So what?" He will say, "It has to be closed!" I will say, "Prove it!" He will fail to prove it. Then he will insist that his claims about closure and inverses are true even though he can't prove them. Ultimately, he will insist that the field axioms are the real definition of R and not simply some trendy thing, pic related, that has been popularized by those who had nothing more to say about Euclid's axioms after using them as the standard for 2000 years. In any case, we don't use the field axioms in physics and this thread is about a physics paper.

[El Arcón No.12089381]

If you want to have a look at my math paper in which I carefully give and develop all of the the axioms, and do the whole "rigor" thing, then this is the one:
Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

[Anonymous No.12089406]

>>12089335
so a sum of real numbers is not necessarily a real number? do you think riemann and other mathematicians worked in a number system which isn't even closed under the sum?

[Anonymous No.12089415]

>>12088578
>>12088600
>based summoning

[Anonymous No.12089433]

>>12088549
Tooker's disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis is so bad it borders on counting as a proof that the Riemann Hypothesis must be true.

[El Arcón No.12089480]

>>12089406
>so a sum of real numbers is not necessarily a real number?
yes

>do you think riemann and other mathematicians worked in a number system which isn't even closed under the sum?
It's hard for me know what you mean by "worked in." The Euclidean cut-in-a-line definition of R certainly allows non-closure, and certainly Euclid's definition was the one Riemann implicitly used by not citing any definition of R at all in his paper. In fact, I don't even think closure was a property Riemann cared about. Galois had just invented groups about 20 years before Riemann published, and I don't think group theory had yet conquered mathematics by the 1850s. I'm not sure where the idea of "closure" in mathematics comes from, but I've never seen anything from the Euler-Gauss-Riemann tradition that mentioned it.

[Anonymous No.12089487]

>>12089335
>but you have not proven it
It's a definition. A field is an integral domain in which every non-zero element is a unit. The fact that real numbers are a field follows easily from the triangle inequality if you construct them as equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rationals. You should know this if you have enough knowledge to talk about the Zeta function.

[Anonymous No.12089495]

>>12089480
do you realize that 99% theorems which include real numbers (for example literally all of analysis) don't even make sense if you don't assume that you can add and multiply real numbers? how do you explain that? are you saying that gauss, euler, riemann etc. were all wrong?

[Anonymous No.12089501]

>>12089495
The delusional schizo you're arguing with literally thinks he's God, do you really think he cares that he contradicts people much smarter than him?

[Anonymous No.12089523]

>>12088549
I'm game to try and prove. Who wants to start?

[El Arcón No.12089533]

>>12089487
I do know that and I agree with what you wrote.

>>12089495
>do you realize
I'd put it even higher than 99%, but I do realize that.

>how do you explain that?
I'd say that since addition and multiplication are the foundation of pretty much all of math, if those operations were taken away it would follow that they theorems built on them would fail.

>gauss, euler, riemann etc. were all wrong?
no

>>12089501
literally I literally think that because I was literally named that when I was literally a literal baby.

[Anonymous No.12089544]

>>12089533
>no
but all of their theorems in analysis are wrong if you don't assume real numbers satisfy i.e. closure under the operations.

[Anonymous No.12089554]

>>12089544
They satisfy closure under a normal distribution curve without respect to magnitude.

[Anonymous No.12089582]

>>12089533
>literally I literally think that because I was literally named that when I was literally a literal baby.
You weren't and being named something doesn't make you that thing anyway, you retarded schizo.

[El Arcón No.12089584]

>>12089544
>but all of their theorems in analysis are wrong if you don't assume real numbers satisfy i.e. closure under the operations.
That's total bullshit. The set
[eqn]S=\{1,2,3,4,5\}[/eqn]
isn't closed and we can still do addition and multiplication with the elements of S in the usual way. What you said is profoundly stupid. Do you think three plus five stops being eight just because [math] 8\not\in S[/math]? Damn you are stupid! Show me one theorem of any of the three of them which fails in the absence of closure.

>>12089554
Please tell me more about this.

[El Arcón No.12089598]

>>12089582
Please tell us how you came into knowledge of what I was or was not named when I was a baby. Do you deny that I am Jon? Just like I have a birth certificate that says I am, indeed, Jon, I also have this letter from a rabbi that says I am God.

[Anonymous No.12089650]

>>12089584
>Show me one theorem of any of the three of them which fails in the absence of closure.
fundamental theorem of algebra

[El Arcón No.12089701]

>>12089650
That doesn't fail without closure.

[Anonymous No.12089716]

The domain of the Riemann Hypothesis is the Reals, not the Hyperreals.

The hypothesis is interested in non trivial zeros within the critical strip, not in the neighborhood of infinity.

Instead of claiming to be a disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis, which has already been proven true, the paper should be rewritten specifically as an analysis of the Riemann Zeta function in the domain of the hyperreals where it could stand as a source on the matter.

The author would gain even more traction if he could show which specific hyperreals cause zeros.

[Anonymous No.12089753]

>>12089533
>I do know that and I agree with what you wrote.
Oh so you should have no problem telling us the inverse of [math]\widehat\infty - 1[/math] then, or of any non-zero element. :)

[Anonymous No.12089760]

>>12089701
>That doesn't fail without closure.
how would you know? every proof which uses addition or multiplication somewhere is wrong.
anyways, it clearly fails without field axioms. how do you explain this?

[El Arcón No.12089764]

>>12089716
>The hypothesis is interested in non trivial zeros within the critical strip, not in the neighborhood of infinity.
Clay defines the problem we all call RH, not you.
>Problems of the Millennium: the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/official_problem_description.pdf
Pic related is the ENTIRE statement of the problem. They explicitly exclude the negative even integers even though it was already obvious that the hypothesis is not about that. They don't exclude the neighborhood of infinity because the problem is about zeros other than the trivial zeros. Thus, "nontrivial zeros." You are wrong. If you want to make up your own version of the problem aside from the question that Clay has a bounty on, then go ahead and do it. For most people who talk about RH, however, we will be talking about the problem Clay offers the bounty on.

[El Arcón No.12089775]

>>12089716
I don't use hyperreals in the paper. If you think a paper should be written that way, then you should write it.

>>12089753
As I said, if you prove that real numbers have to have an inverse, then I will entertain your inquiry about inverses.

>>12089760
>how would you know?
The main reason I would know is that the theorem requires real polynomials to have complex roots which aren't real numbers at all, dipshit.

> it clearly fails without field axioms. how do you explain this?
It doesn't clearly fail without the field axioms. that theorem predates the field axioms by hundreds of years. I don't explain it.

[Anonymous No.12089791]

>>12089775
TFA implies existence of multiplicative inverse for every non-zero complex number

[El Arcón No.12089812]

>>12089791
What is TFA? If you mean "the field axioms," then I agree: if one takes the field axioms, an multiplicative inverse exists for all non-zero numbers. However, you have not proven that R satisfies the field axioms, so you have not proven that every non-zero real has a multiplicative inverse.

The thing about RH is that it was already a famous problem for 50+ years by the time TFA got invented, and only an asshole would say that RH is formulated in terms of something that didn't exist until 50+ years after Riemann formulated it. Riemann used the Euclidean axioms, not the field axioms.

[Anonymous No.12089816]

>>12089812
How simply put are you proving RH false?

[Anonymous No.12089819]

>>12089812
I meant FTA, fundamental theorem of algebra

[Anonymous No.12089839]

>>12089812
>Riemann used the Euclidean axioms, not the field axioms.
I don't know man, I'm pretty sure Riemann thought 1/x exists for all non-zero x.

[El Arcón No.12089875]

>>12089816
I do it wit maximal rigor here:
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
I do it with minimal rigor in pic related.

[El Arcón No.12089879]

>>12089819
Here I do it with intermediate rigor.

[El Arcón No.12089881]

>>12089816
Here is with not very much rigor.

[El Arcón No.12089896]

>>12089839
I'm pretty sure Riemann used Euclid's axioms, which are the axioms I used. Riemannian geometry being a direct extension of Euclidean geometry is evidence that Riemann used Euclid's axioms.

>pretty sure Riemann thought 1/x exists for all non-zero x.
I also agree that this exists.

[Anonymous No.12089918]

>>12089812
The fact that real numbers are a field follows easily from the triangle inequality if you construct them as equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rationals. You should know this if you have enough knowledge to talk about the Zeta function.

[Anonymous No.12089924]

>>12089875
Infinite states exist between every real number as a larger infinity how does this show divergence in all states?

[El Arcón No.12089932]

>>12089918
>The fact that real numbers are a field follows easily from the triangle inequality if you construct them as equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rationals.
I already agreed with you last time you wrote that. I still agree.

[El Arcón No.12089940]

>>12089924
It follows trivially from Hilbert's first umbrella theorem for peanut butter sammiches.

[Anonymous No.12089942]

>>12089881
kek you are such a fucking loon I see why you are memed.

[El Arcón No.12089947]

>>12089942
I am the Sovereign Lord.

[Anonymous No.12089995]

>>12089947
i just looked at your preliminaries paper. only 1 page in an it's terribly sloppy and circular and vague.
you say the aim is to define real numbers as cuts in the real numbers
then you say
>A line is a 1D space extending infinitely far in both directions.
This is laughably non rigourous? Like, while intuitively clear, wtf exactly is '1D' and 'both directions' terms you bust out of nowhere while trying to redefine $$\mathbb{R}$$
It's all so schizophrnic and im just not going to waste my time reading any more. I can't even imagine what basic errors and non-sequitors you make later on.
My advice? Since you seem to invest so much energy into this, while it is laughed at by undergrads, why don't you just pay some academic a few hundred dollars to take a look at your foundations paper and edit it? If it is actually consistent then they will help this thing actually be readable. it's flaming garbage right now. And if there's errors in reasoning they'll point that out too. Best part about this reply is I KNOW you will respond

[Anonymous No.12089996]

>>12089995
Also I just want to say my brother is a narcissistic schizophrenic and whenever he tries to bond with me over math he sounds just like this. absolute drivel

[Anonymous No.12090011]

>>12089947
The Based God

[El Arcón No.12090104]

>>12089995
I don't have a preliminaries paper so you must be confused.

>the aim is to define real numbers as cuts in the real numbers
Definitely not me.

>1D
1D means "of dimension one"

>both directions
these are the directions of increase and decrease of a parameter along the single dimension

> foundations paper
I don't have a foundations paper. I think it is you whose thinking is disordered.

>Best part about this reply is I KNOW you will respond
But do you KNOW what fate will befall your ancestor's descendants as payment for the things you have written here? This is a big flaw in your approach to life, I believe.

>>12089996
I have never tried to bond with anyone on this disgusting website. That is a mischaracterization of the testimony of the Jesus Christ which I deliver here. In this way, you play the role of the dirty jewish Pharisees.

[El Arcón No.12090129]

>>12090104
And the pharisees were at least trained in the law they claimed expertise in. You're just a tard who regurgitates what your team of PhDs hands you on a note card. Not only are you stupid, but you are evil. Everyone who would accept a vouch from you is among them whose children are going to be killed, many of them not in a nice way like Hitler was killing people's children in Germany. The people who have hated you, however, will see their children flourish.

[Anonymous No.12090134]

>>12090011
he has the pingu "now I am not doing it" face

[El Arcón No.12090135]

I wonder: Do the people who supported you delude themselves with the idea that I might accept their support? I will not. I will make was on them and I will profane the notion that they might have ever had any share in my kingdom. I will profane it with filth and cruelty. It's not going nice like gas chambers and bullets.

[El Arcón No.12090140]

I wonder: Do the people who supported you delude themselves with the idea that I might accept their support? I will not. I will make war on them and I will profane the notion that they might have ever had any share in my kingdom. I will profane it with filth and cruelty. It's not going nice like gas chambers and bullets.

[El Arcón No.12090199]

You know how that is a like a big sad thing for you that lil Annekins got hidden for so long but then she got found found by the nazis and they killed her? That's like the ancestors of your supporters hanging on and hanging on. Generation after generation, the nazis never found them and they continued to live. Then they supported you and the SS raided the house and sent everyone to Auschwitz and Dr. Mengele.

[Anonymous No.12090211]

>>12089248
>If you can prove that all real numbers have an inverse
Well not all real numbers have an inverse, for example the real number 0 doesn't have one. Other than that they all do tho

[El Arcón No.12090215]

>>12090211
>Other than that they all do tho
But you still don't prove it. Why not?

[Anonymous No.12090236]

>>12090215
Dude you should open an introductory analysis book and read on.
The field axioms explicitly state the multiplicative inverse exists for all elements of the field sans the additive identity.
Any of the myriad of constructions of the reals prove the reals are a field, so if it belongs to the reals then unless it's 0 it has an inverse.
Q.E.D

[Anonymous No.12090239]

Is this math for people who didn't pass first year university calculus?

[El Arcón No.12090241]

>>12090236
>The field axioms explicitly state the multiplicative inverse exists for all elements of the field sans the additive identity.
Dude, I have agreed with you on that point like three times already.

>Any of the myriad of constructions of the reals prove the reals are a field
This is wrong.

[Anonymous No.12090246]

>>12089940
Nice bait. C ya later.

[Anonymous No.12090266]

>>12090241
>Dude I agreed with you 3 times
I've only posted twice dude

>This is wrong
I'm not gonna go over constructing the reals with dedekin cuts with you holy shit just read rudin chapter 1

[El Arcón No.12090276]

>>12090266
>read rudin chapter 1
I think between you being unfamiliar with the original contributions in my paper and me being unfamiliar with the rudimentary elements of standard analysis, the former is real and the latter is fictitious.

[Anonymous No.12090317]

>>12089014
Because you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.12090543]

>>12090276
you still haven't explained how come that the fundamental theorem of algebra implies existence of multiplicative inverse for every non-zero complex number

[Anonymous No.12090580]

there's no such thing as "the neighborhood of the origin" ??

it's not a unique object.

[Anonymous No.12090703]

>>12088549
>>12088600
samefag

[Anonymous No.12091377]

>>12089373
Wait but under the Euclidean axioms all you can say is that numbers form an ordered field with the property that all positive numbers have square roots.

[El Arcón No.12091385]

>>12090543
nor do I intend to, nor did I claim that it does

>>12091377
The Euclidean axioms do not imply the field axioms and if you say it you would be wrong.

[Anonymous No.12091403]

Tooker, do you have a youtube channel? Ever thought of making videos with your thoughts an explanations?

[El Arcón No.12091436]

>>12091403
I do have a youtube channel. I have never considered communicating my scholarly work in the video format..

[Anonymous No.12091438]

>>12091385
fundamental theorem of algebra implies existence of multiplicative inverses for all non-zero complex numbers. gauss clearly believed the theorem is true because, he proved it in several different ways. but according to you he worked with definition of complex numbers where inverses don't necessarily exist. how do you explain that?

[Anonymous No.12091643]

>>12088549
>Can it be proven or disproven?

I did a quick google search about this and from what I could gather: if RH is false, this could definitely be proven, but it's possible that RH could be true and impossible to prove. Is my understanding correct on that?

[Anonymous No.12091738]

>>12090703
Wrong

[El Arcón No.12091893]

>>12091438
I don't explain it and instead I insist that the theorem survives in the absence of closure. The theorem was introduced into this thread as an example of a theorem which fails in the absence of closure under addition. As per usual with the child-like rhetorical devices of my detractors, the context of the fundamental theorem of algebra in this thread has turned into a red herring.

>>12091738
Correct!

[Anonymous No.12091928]

>>12091893
now I introduce it as an example of a theorem which fails in your number system which you claim is equivalent to the one mathematicians were implicitly using until the introduction of field axioms/cauchy sequences/dedekind cuts. I'll repeat. fundamental theorem of algebra implies existence of multiplicative inverses for all non-zero complex numbers. Gauss clearly believed the theorem is true, because he proved it in several different ways. but according to you he worked with definition of complex numbers where inverses don't necessarily exist. how do you explain that?

[El Arcón No.12091978]

>>12091928
>fundamental theorem of algebra implies existence of multiplicative inverses for all non-zero complex numbers.
I don't see that. Maybe if you draw out the implication I will see what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.12091992]

>>12091978
for [math]k \in \mathbb{C}, k\neq 0[/math] consider the polynomial [math]kx - 1[/math]

[Anonymous No.12092003]

>>12088549
this is probably the easiest way to get a thread with many replies, tooker will just continuously bump the thread for you

[El Arcón No.12092082]

>>12091992
Ok, I considered it. What now?

[Anonymous No.12092089]

>>12092082
root of this polynomial is inverse of [math]k[/math]

[El Arcón No.12092157]

>>12092089
I see. My explanation is that people were only thinking about the neighborhood of the origin when they proved that theorem. It should be reformulated as "every non-constant single-variable polynomial with complex coefficients in the neighborhood of the origin has at least one complex root." This formulation preserves everything since it's applications in history were restricted to the neighborhood of the origin.

[Anonymous No.12092170]

>>12092157
today I've been reading some work of Gauss and Riemann on differential geometry and guess what, they're using division (and other stuff) without a single assumption on the numbers to be in the neighborhood of the origin. could it be that this assumption was again implicit? would you say that it was maybe a common practice to think only about neighborhood of the origin without stating this fact explicitily?

[El Arcón No.12092274]

>>12092170
>could it be that this assumption was again implicit?
Kind of. I think if you look at what they have done in differential geometry, all of the numbers they use are explicitly such they have zero fractional distance with respect to infinity. To say that there was an implicit nod toward the exclusion of the neighborhood of infinity would be to say that they at least had it in mind, which I do not believe. IMO, they simply neglected numbers with non-vanishing fractional distance, and their work, in fact, was about the neighborhood of the origin without regard for any implicit or explicit statements. May statements regarding "all real numbers" reflect that the neighborhood of infinity had been thoroughly explored yet. Euler had considered such numbers with non-zero fractional distance, and he was considering them before Gauss or Riemann were born. He frequently used the half part of an infinite integer in his proofs but he never extended to the general case that I have constructed. So, therefore, anything one might say about, "Gauss and Riemann weren't doing it so it doesn't exist," can be undercut with, "Euler was doing before either of them were born so it does exist."

[Anonymous No.12092300]

>>12092274
so if you agree that mathematicians used to implicitly assume only neighborhood of the origin in some cases, what makes you think that RH in particular also doesn't assume this? I mean considering how brilliant Riemann was and how trivial the solution becomes when one includes neighborhood of infinity.

[El Arcón No.12092316]

>>12092300
>so if you agree
I didn't agree. I said I pretty much don't agree: "To say that there was an implicit nod toward the exclusion of the neighborhood of infinity would be to say that they at least had it in mind, which I do not believe."

[Anonymous No.12092334]

>>12092316
so they implicitly worked in a number system which included neighborhood of infinity but they didn't know it included neighborhood of infinity?

[El Arcón No.12092399]

>>12092334
That's pretty much the (((exact opposite))) of the point I'm trying to make. For me, it suffices to notice that they never used a number with non-vanishing fractional distance with respect to infinity. In fact (regarding what is factual), they didn't use those numbers or consider them. This point of fact supersedes any opinion one might have about what they did or did not mean to do implicitly.

Your emphasis on what was implicit comes at the expense of what was explicit. It was explicit that all of the numbers they considered had zero fractional distance with respect to infinity. This is a fact. From this fact, it is appropriate to draw the conclusion that their analyses were restricted to the neighborhood of the origin. Once you start talking about why they might have done that, or what was or not implicit, and even whether or not implicit and unstated mean the same thing, then we move out of Fact Land and into Opinion Land. I can see why you prefer to have discussions in Opinion Land. Can you see why I prefer to have discussions in Fact Land?

[Anonymous No.12092432]

>>12092399
>From this fact, it is appropriate to draw the conclusion that their analyses were restricted to the neighborhood of the origin
so why do you think RH is not only about neighborhood of the origin? it's your *opinion* that it's not. 99% of all mathematicians don't share this opinion. do you think Riemann would share your opinion? do you think he would acknowledge that you solved RH or would he say "that's not what I had in mind"?

[El Arcón No.12092465]

>so it's implicit, eh?
<kind of, but not really.
>so you agree it's implicit then?
<no, I don't.
>so it's implicit then!
<no

I think these tards must be loading my opinion into coq and getting coq to try to find the error in my opinion because none of the humans can do it. Here, it looks to me like coq told them that if they could get to me concede that this thing was implicit, then they would have scored GOTCHA!!!! Look how hard they are trying there. You cannot get me because my opinions about my own research are correct. If I have an opinion that is not fully developed, then I will not make concrete declarations predicated upon that opinion, and you will not GOTCHA me in that way either. One of the main reason why I always win arguments on the internet is because I don't insist I'm right about everything. I only insist I'm right when I know I'm right. Most people insist they are right when they think they are right. Math is great in that way because it one of the few subject matters in which one can be assured of absolute knowledge. Maybe that's my favorite thing about math.

>>12092432
>so why do you think RH is not only about neighborhood of the origin?
I think that because the Euclidean axioms Riemann worked with are such that numbers in the neighborhood of infinity are admissible.

>do you think Riemann would share your opinion?
Absolutely. I think he would very much enjoy my fractional distance paper and would agree with everything I wrote.

>do you think he would acknowledge that you solved RH
yes

>would he say "that's not what I had in mind"?
no

[Anonymous No.12092520]

RH is fundamentally important because of the distribution of primes. Since every prime is in the neighborhood of the origin, they say, "We don't care about the neighborhood of infinity!," or they say it for whatever reason they say it, MK Ultra maybe. However, if P is an arbitrary prime number then numbers of the form (inf - P) have the exact same distribution as the primes, and now we also have NEW ARITHMETIC TOOLS for the analysis of such numbers. These idiots who say, "We only care about the neighborhood of the origin," want you to think that no serious mathematician would want to examine what can be said about the distribution of numbers in the form (inf - P). That is completely stupid. Furthermore, even if they didn't have the same distribution, the suggestion that serious mathematicians would study RH for 150 years, looking at one tiny little simple function under the world's biggest microscope over and over and over, and then they could be handed brand new zeros for the function and would not also want to spend another 150 years looking at them under the same microscope, but would instead discount them categorically without study, is also completely fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.12093069]

>>12088600
Tookie-took took did you finally have sex Took?
I guess The Took™ was too much for women.

[Anonymous No.12093079]

>>12092520

https://youtu.be/EGadYJLUpSw

I say twin primes lie at 15xeven +/-1
15×odd numbers.

And through searching. I found quadruplet primes. And 18911,18913, 18917,18919.
And 1002341,100243,1002347,1002349

And. They are related to fermats primes.

18913-1. = 18912/4=4753

And I argue. In a video. That the area of doubling a square. Is also immeasurable.
And when doubling the area of a square. You will also double the area of the corisponding circle.

Ei: take a 1ft by 1ft square. Mark points. 6inches in from all four corner a clock wise or anti clock wise and connect the dots
And all perfect squares. Lie on the hypotenuse of that square so cut it from corner to corner. And all perfectly constructed squares. Lie on that hypotenuse

Because you can make square with 16,special right triangles.
That first square. Has two. The next perfect square has four. Then the next has 8,16,32.64. So I am arguing. That a hypotenuse is measurable. And that perfect squares and circles. Are immeasurable
And that the diameter of circles. Rely on this hypotenuse. Since spinning the hypotenuse would would create "perfect" circle.

That a square with 8 special right is double the area of 4 special right triangles. And the hypotenuse is the diagonal of the half sized square.
And this would explain how ancient civilizations where able to contrast all these massive monuments with nearly pin point accuracy. And why is that of importance? Well video games. The surface area of characters is determined by tiny little triangles. And that this is why.

Also. That prime quadruplets. Lie at at multiples of 300n+ (last two digits of the first "possible" twins primes.
Ei:41,43,47,49 was a possible prime quadruplet)

[Anonymous No.12093372]

>>12092465
https://youtu.be/WO9ewCO7TYI

[Anonymous No.12093373]

>>12089014
shitlatexman is back

[Anonymous No.12093434]

>>12088549
I hope you know the Riemann Hypothesis is about like actual numbers in the complex plane rather then these imaginary tookie numbers. Even if given the smallest possibility that everything is right, it still wouldn't disprove the true Riemann-Zeta hypothesis as it is actually stated.

[Anonymous No.12093438]

>>12088549
>rotates the critical strip by 90°
>Translation approved!

[El Arcón No.12093586]

>>12093434
>it still wouldn't disprove the true Riemann-Zeta hypothesis as it is actually stated.
Yes it would.

[Anonymous No.12093594]

>>12093586
Who would cede that position?

[Solivagus No.12093608]

>>12093594
Baiting people into fortification is a speciality of mine. Then I send in celebrators and entertainers so they remain focused on some bullshit math ego problem and remajn ignorant and ultimately waste their energy on an endeavour that exists primarily in their imagination.

But I would love to see Tooker become world famous for all his work just to watch his face accept YAP (Yet Another Prize) because celebrating and rewarding him would be the only way to shut him up like a spoiled angry child. After his Nth mathematical prize or award I would be in the audience to see realization dawn on his face that yet again he was baited into a gilded cage of 0 value, full of pomp and grandeur that has nothing to do with real mathematica because he focused too much on receiving recognition rather than simply using his discovery to just redefine mathematics so that people would leave him alone like he wanted all along.

Also, hi Tooker!

[Anonymous No.12093613]

[Solivagus No.12093614]

>>12093586
Oh, yes. My only mathematical discipline is gradiated and exponential difficulty level description and distribution.

Also known as an N-set descriptor theorist. Everyone is so stupid they believe whatever they read or hear because most humans just learn to infer confidence, which I just naturally have.

>Pic related: It's still me!

[Anonymous No.12093706]

>>12093614
>>12093586
Could this board have any more schizos
At this rate we might pass up /x/

[Solivagus No.12093765]

>>12093706
I neither know nor care. I just find Tooker hilarious to engage with as he always seems to be able to turn shit into some holy crusade of vengeful anger.

>Trigger-trap artist extraordinaire! Also I am an exhibitionist and have an exposure and inspection fetish. Don't look TOO deep into my butthole, you never know what's living in there currently.

[Solivagus No.12093775]

>yfw you know someone well enough to continue the conversation without them and simply swap updates with minimal time interaction

[El Arcón No.12093964]

>>12093594
As a matter of fact, I solved the problem that Clay describes in this document:
>Problems of the Millennium: the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/official_problem_description.pdf
I don't know who would "cede" a fact. Having someone "cede" has nothing to do with the fact that I solved the problem described in the document. If they change the document to explicitly rule out the neighborhood of infinity in the way they have explicitly ruled out the negative even integers, then I will be happy to have simply made more progress on RH than anyone else in the 21st century. Facts don't need to be ceded. They exist independently. Some people don't "cede" that I am the Sovereign Lord of ancient glory, but that doesn't change my identity.

[Anonymous No.12094195]

>>12093964
Clay uses different definition of complex numbers than you do

[El Arcón No.12094215]

>>12094195
No they don't.

[El Arcón No.12094221]

>>12094195
No they don't. They say "Riemann extended it to C." He couldn't have used the number field definition which didn't exist in 1859. Neither did the Cauchy sequences or Dedekind cut definitions exist in 1859. The only definition of C available to Riemann is the one Clay uses. That definition of C is two orthogonal copies of Euclidean R, one with the requisite phase i. That's the same definition I use.

Pic related, go a head and tell me which definition of C you think Clay uses. It's not one from decades after Riemann did pic related, is it?

[Anonymous No.12094264]

>>12094221
>It's not one from decades after Riemann did pic related, is it?
that's the one

[Anonymous No.12094270]

>>12094221
In that case you are bending the meaning of 'Euclidean R' with your hatted infinities.

[Anonymous No.12094515]

>>12088549
>Let's have a real discussion about the Riemann Hypothesis.
Don't you mean Let's have an affinely extended discussion about the Riemann Hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.12094593]

>>12092465
if the correct formulation of fundamental theorem of algebra is "every non-constant polynomial with complex coefficients in the neighborhood of origin has a root", then the correct formulation of RH is "real part of every non-trivial zero in the neighborhood of origin of the zeta function is 1/2". saying otherwise is coping.

[El Arcón No.12094834]

>>12094264
How did Riemann extend the domain of the function to an object that didn't exist at the time he did so? Also, please say which non-existent definition of C is the one you think Clay refers to by saying "Riemann extended it to C."

>>12094270
I proved that numbers in the neighborhood of infinity are ordinary, Euclidean reals. It was pic related Main Theorem.

>>12094593
I think Riemann's formulation of RH is the correct one. It is the same one Clay uses, pic related, and it is not the one you wrote. Since you have invented you own magical version of the problem, you should call it [math]\widehat{\text{RH}}[/math] for disambiguation.

[El Arcón No.12094836]

>>12094834
>It is the same one Clay uses, pic related

[i No.12094906]

>>12094515
Happy to, however I'm unsure of what positive yield could be gained from any part from doing so as we traverse the complex plane of self and other.

Here's an offering.

[math]1 - i = x^2 - 2 x + 2[/math]

[El Arcón No.12095482]

>>12094515
The affinely extended real numbers [math]\overline{\mathbb{R}}=\mathbb{R}\cup\pm\infty[/math] only differ from the regular real numbers by their inclusion of the endpoints of the interval
[eqn](-\infty,\infty)\mapsto[-\infty,\infty][/eqn].
I disproved RH with numbers from [math](-\infty,\infty)[/math], and I did not use the nonreal numbers at the endpoints.

Overall, in the way the 7 is not an element of [math]S=\{1,2,3,4,5\}[/math] if we let x=7-4, then x is in S even though 7 is not in S. That's like how (inf - b) is in R even though inf is not in R.

[Anonymous No.12095530]

>>12095482
let x=7-1, then x isn't in S because 7 is not in S. That's like how (inf - b) isn't in R because inf is not in R.
(inf - b) is1/infinitesimal away from infinity, which makes it above any finite real, greater than any (inf-c) where c>b, less than any (inf-c) where c<b, and still infinitely far away from infinity.

[Anonymous No.12095559]

>>12095482
why do you think infinitely long "segments" need to have a midpoint?

[Anonymous No.12095711]

>>12088578
It's more than whack. It's incomprehensible.

[El Arcón No.12095734]

>>12095530
Your reasoning is wrong. If it was because of seven not being in S, then x=6-1 would not be in S because 6 is not in S. Overall, if
[eqn]S=\{\text{XX3, MJ, K**, LOL, HAHA}\}[/eqn]
and [math] (\text{J12} + \text{XX3})=\text{HAHA}[/math], then
[eqn](\text{J12} + \text{XX3})\in S[/eqn]
even though [math]J12\not\in S[/math].

[El Arcón No.12095747]

>>12095711
Which is the first sentence you were not able to comprehend? I am highly fluent in English so I doubt there is a sentence that a literate person cannot comprehend.

[El Arcón No.12095758]

>>12095559
It's for the reasons in Theorem 2.3.21 and Example 2.3.21:
>Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

[Anonymous No.12095861]

>>12095758
that's circular reasoning. why do you consider infinitely long line segments to be "line segments" in the usual sense?

[El Arcón No.12095896]

>>12095861
Please explain the circle that you feel like you see in my reasoning. Are you saying it's circular because the argument refers to the circle in the figure, or do you mean it's circular such that it is fallacious?

Why do you ask me about my paper but not read my paper?

[El Arcón No.12096585]

[Anonymous No.12096603]

how to write in latex?
\[test\]

[Anonymous No.12096605]

>>12095896
>please explain
being wrong doesn't need proof, you're just retarded

[Anonymous No.12096607]

[math]
test
\del
\int_{-\inf}^{\inf}dx
[/math]

[Anonymous No.12096636]

>>12095747
>I am highly fluent in English
this is news to me, since when you pick up the language?

[Anonymous No.12096648]

>>12089584
>isn't closed and we can still do addition and multiplication with the elements of S in the usual way.
because its a subset of a field you literal retard

[Anonymous No.12096652]

>>12089875
>I do it wit maximal rigor here:
>MAXIMAL RIGOR
>GENTLEMEN, HIDE YOUR WIVES, THE MAXIMAL RIGOR MAN IS HERE
if you want to claim MAXIMAL RIGOR then use a computer verifier

[El Arcón No.12096653]

>>12096648
>its a subset of a field
I see you have a claim. Try proving it.

[Anonymous No.12096656]

>>12091436
>I have never considered communicating my scholarly work in the video format.
because even John Gabriel outshines you and you dont want that to be apparent?

[El Arcón No.12096657]

>>12096652
>if you want to claim MAXIMAL RIGOR then put it into a black box and see what it says
>way more rigor than not using a black box

[El Arcón No.12096661]

>>12096656
I am not a fan of the video format. The pen is mightier than the camera, in general.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=u7Q6o_1559880838

[Anonymous No.12096665]

>>12096661
Tooker, if you are God then fuck are you illiterate in your own language.

[Anonymous No.12096667]

>>12096657
>>way more rigor than not using a black box
>being as dumb as Tookie
Tookie Tookie, dumb as a cookie
Kooky Kooky, logic very loopy

[Anonymous No.12097164]

>>12095758
so you're saying that [0,inf) or [0,inf] has a midpoint because tan(x) gives a bijection between [0,pi] and [0,inf] and [0,pi] does have a midpoint? you're gonna have to prove that. I'm afraid "a chart can no more disrupt the geometric configuration than erasing an island from a map might make the physical island disappear from the sea" doesn't count as a rigorous proof.

[El Arcón No.12097195]

>>12097164
>you're gonna have to prove that
right here, fuckhead

[Anonymous No.12097218]

>>12097195
that works only for finite line segments

[Anonymous No.12097459]

>>12088549
>Infinity hat
Do mathematicians really?

[El Arcón No.12097715]

>>12097218
It works for all line segments.

[Anonymous No.12098142]

>>12097715
correct, all line segments are finite

[El Arcón No.12098260]

>>12098142
I assume you mean, "All line segments span finite distance." That is wrong. A metric function is required to measure distance but it is possible to define a line segment without giving a metric function at all.

[Anonymous No.12098309]

>>12098260
Hey. Have you thought of getting your stuff peer-reviewed and published? I'm genuinely curious to know what professionals think about your work. Any good news so far?

[El Arcón No.12098367]

>>12098309
I have published all of my stuff already on viXra. viXra is a non-qualifying outlet for the terms of the Clay prize, but so is arXiv where Perelman published, and the terms have a procedure for a waiver. The one they gave Perelman is the exact same one I would need to get, so publishing in viXra is good enough for satisfying the Clay conditions. For peer-review: yes, I thought about it. All the feedback I got from the ~30 journals I've send my stuff to said it's totally worthless trash that would be a waste of space in the editor's trash can. I'm not sure if that feedback came professionals or man-in-the-middle attackers. The latter, I hope, but quite likely the former. arXiv even rejected several of my papers saying they "contain no scholarly content." Actually, for my most recent peer-review attempt I found a Turkish journal with a very low impact factor, and they only said that the paper was too long.

I think it is quite likely that anyone who receives my manuscripts for consideration also receives a national security letter saying, "Because Thomas Jefferson absolved the colonists of allegiance to the king of Great Britain, we have the authority to command you not to publish the manuscript that the king of Great Britain sent to you. Since we have written 'United States of America' at the header of this MS Word file, and we have printed it on a fancy laser printer, so you are forbidden to publish it!"

[Anonymous No.12098377]

>>12098260
>a line segment is a line segment

[Anonymous No.12098380]

>>12098367
>All the feedback I got from the ~30 journals I've send my stuff to said it's totally worthless trash that would be a waste of space in the editor's trash can
What makes you say this? It's to my understanding that papers usually get sent back for editing or to elaborate on certain points. Graduate students go through this process for a while when they are still learning but eventually go on to publish at least a few papers. What are the publishers' most common complaints?

>Actually, for my most recent peer-review attempt I found a Turkish journal with a very low impact factor, and they only said that the paper was too long.

Any other comments besides the length?

[El Arcón No.12098392]

>>12098377
>shit cunt
Since this says "a finite" portion, I need to refer to my clarification (>>12098260) about the difference between being finite and spanning finite distance.

[El Arcón No.12098409]

>>12098380
>It's to my understanding that papers usually get sent back for editing or to elaborate on certain points.
The thing you describe is called peer-review. The thing I describe is called being denied peer-review.

>What are the publishers' most common complaints?
That it's "not appropriate."

>Any other comments besides the length?
I had someone from the London Mathematical Society offer me some decent feedback before the paper got rejected. Overall, the sum total of the feedback I received is, "You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded." Even though I proved in one of my shorted papers that some numbers are greater than every natural number, the person who rejected it told me it was wrong because every number is less than some natural number, and he did not cite a flaw in my proof. He just made the declaration and rejected the paper.

Pic related is the main thing: if arXiv is telling me that it "contains no scholarly content" that is clearly just a fuck you to me. There is something dirty going on. Probably it has something to do with me being held as a slave in Antarctica and connected to a fake internet.

[Anonymous No.12098421]

>>12098392
>Since this contradicts me I need to show it before someone else uses it to shit on me, so I can act like ive already accounted for it

[Anonymous No.12098452]

>>12098409
>"You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded."
You sound bitter but perhaps it is in your best interests to work with someone else to help you edit the paper? It could very well be that you just are not a good writer and could use some help.

> Even though I proved in one of my shorted papers that some numbers are greater than every natural number, the person who rejected it told me it was wrong because every number is less than some natural number
Why not just write them a counter proof? Or perhaps work with them to make it so readers that readers who may say the same thing are led to a footnote proving them wrong?

> if arXiv is telling me that it "contains no scholarly content" that is clearly just a fuck you to me
Then forget them and go publish in a normal journal. You sound very hostile towards people who critique your work but need to understand it is your job to prove them wrong without ad hominem or just saying "I'm right, they are wrong".

[El Arcón No.12098473]

>>12098421
It doesn't contradict me. All line segments can be drawn on a page so they are finite. To the contrary, and infinite line cannot be drawn on a page because it is infinite. Indeed, this is exactly the issue I cited in Example 2.3.22.

You, shitcunt, are the one whose rhetoric has a devious character when you fail to distinguish between a finite object and a finite distance defined on that object with a particular metric function.

[El Arcón No.12098478]

>>12098473
>>12098421
Furthermore, even if Wolfram means "finite portion" in the sense of finite distance, I have not used Wolfram's definition in my paper.

[El Arcón No.12098535]

>>12098452
And I am bitter, based sentiment analyzer. I am very, very bitter. I'd like to work with someone but I have no collaborators and I am a pariah at this point with my felony burglar nigger guy email spammer stuff on the internet, not to mention being held as a slave in Antarctica. Everyone says, "Get help." Few say, "I will help you."

>It could very well be that you just are not a good writer
It could not be that. I am a very good writer. Buy my book, btw, pic related. It's on amazon. I am not a very good at keyboarding, but I am as good at writing as I am at math and physics.

>just write them a counter proof?
A counter to what? If I could get peer-review, then I would be able. As long as I am denied peer-review, I cannot.There is a gimmick here: People say, "Did it pass peer review?" The answer is, "No." There is a connotation there that it failed peer review, but that is wrong. The truth is that it did not pass peer-review because it was never peer-reviewed.

> You sound very hostile towards people who critique your work
You are wrong again here. I am hostile to people who lie about my work and who say that the truth is a lie, and that facts are not facts, and try to pass off lies as if they are facts. I am highly grateful to people, however, who critique my work in the sense of constructive criticisms which reflect a subject matter expertise. My long paper reflects many such criticisms of my earlier RH papers and I was never hostile to those critics. I am hostile to the liars, however. I hope their children die.

>your job to prove them wrong without ad hominem or just saying "I'm right, they are wrong".
You must be fucking with me now, based sentiment analyzer. I go to great lengths to prove these people wrong. I do it over and over, even at the expense of getting my dick electrocuted when I reply to obvious bait criticisms posted by those who implant sexual torture devices into my penis in addition to shitting on the work I do.

[Anonymous No.12098590]

>>12098535
>I'd like to work with someone but I have no collaborators and I am a pariah at this point
That's tough man.

>Everyone says, "Get help." Few say, "I will help you."
My condolences. I hope one day someone comes forth to help you with your troubles.

>I go to great lengths to prove these people wrong.
If you are truly right in your work, then keep pressing on. Nothing worth pursuing is without its struggle.

[El Arcón No.12098612]

>>12098590
>That's tough man.
Yeah, but it is as it is written as well.

[Anonymous No.12098624]

>>12098612
Why are you even here you fuck everything up?

[Anonymous No.12098649]

>>12097715
yeah? how do you construct a circle which isn't centered at a point on the numberline?

[Anonymous No.12098653]

>>12098649
You follow a circular trajectory, it's not about your focal point but the angle you are using.

[Anonymous No.12098671]

>>12098653
how do you construct circle centered at infinity? what makes you think such thing is allowed?

[Anonymous No.12098679]

>>12098671
Why shouldn't it we deal with infinity vectors already, it's just a bended vector.

[Anonymous No.12098683]

>>12098679
>bended vector

[Anonymous No.12098688]

>>12098683
Yeah an angle to the infinite, what could go wrong?

[El Arcón No.12098856]

>>12098624
I suppose I arrived in Antarctica after my enemies sedated and abducted me. Is that what you meant by "here?"

>>12098649
I don't.

>>12098671
I construct circles on A and B before I introduced a chart so your question is retarded. I didn't do the thing you asked how I did, retard.

[Anonymous No.12098875]

>>12098856
so the proof in >>12097195
works only for finite line segments?

[Anonymous No.12098904]

>>12098478
>I have not used Wolfram's definition in my paper.
i agree
you dont have any proper definitions in your paper
now throw an ad hom at me instead of arguing the point

[El Arcón No.12098954]

>>12098875
Are deliberately not specifying whether you're referring to a fine a line segment or a line segment which spans a finite width, or do you not understand the difference between a line segment and the distance generated by a metric function of the chart on the line segment?

>>12098904
Are you so stupid as to think that me calling you shitcunt is ad hominem? Ad hominem is when I say you are wrong because you are a shitcunt. You despicable, detestable, vile shitcunt! I do believe you are indeed so ignorant as to think that my referring to your poor qualities, such as you being a shitcunt, is an example of the ad hominem fallacy. I suppose that is only one of a great many things you are wrong about, shitcunt.

>proper definitions
Define "proper." If you do, then I may be able to argue the point with you.

[Anonymous No.12098968]

>>12098954
>Define "proper." If you do, then I may be able to argue the point with you.
goddamn, imagine being so bad with definitions you need someone to define a proper definition for you.

[El Arcón No.12098969]

Look at these two idiots:
>>12098875
>>12098904
Look at the way they abuse the language for the purposes of their rhetoric. Look how they luxuriate in using as few words as possible, as if precise speaking was detestable to them. The brevity of their comments testifies as to how little thought goes into making them. Why not just write, "Neener neener, I stabbed your weiner," instead?

One thinks name calling is a fallacy. The other probably does not know the difference between the finiteness of a line segment and the finiteness of the distance generated by a metric function of the coordinate along the line segment. What detestable creatures! If I said, "You are wrong because you are dirty animals," that would be an example of an ad hominem fallacy. As it is, I only point out in an ancillary fashion that you nasty shitcunts, probably born to mothers with smelly vaginas.

I think the main reason that I am in Antarctica is so that I will be surrounded by idiots and know-nothings. There is a well-known saying about geniuses: Geniuses seem like crazy people to dumb people. You can also translate that up the IQ spectrum to arrive at "Super geniuses seem like crazy people to normies." By keeping me away from the other geniuses, they nullify the value of my abilities and training. Antarctica is rightly called Dunning-Krugerland. Maybe after I melt all of the ice down there with the armada of free energy UFOs mounted with free energy anti-ice thermal resonance masers, pic related, I will rename the exposed rock as Dunningkrugerland. Maybe I will establish Camp Helene in Dunningkrugerland.

[Anonymous No.12098973]

>>12098954
does the proof work for [0,inf] ?

[Anonymous No.12098984]

>>12098969
determining whether a proof really works in general and not only in a special case is not "abusing the language for the purpose of my rhetoric", it's mathematics you drooling retard.

[El Arcón No.12098991]

>>12098875
>>12098904

[Anonymous No.12098997]

>>12098984
Is bad biology that's what it is.

[El Arcón No.12099000]

>>12098973
yes

>>12098984
I proved the general case in Theorem 2.3.21. Your inquiry is about a special case. I addressed that special case in Example 2.3.22.

[Anonymous No.12099011]

>>12099000
>yes
it doesn't. you can't have a circle centered at infinity (i.e. in a point which is not on the number line nor in the cartesian plane). and if you think you can, it's definitely something which needs elaboration.

[Anonymous No.12099017]

>>12098969
>Look how they luxuriate in using as few words as possible, as if precise speaking was detestable to them.
We're shitting on YOU for lacking precision, the number of words you use doesn't determine your fluency you moron
You would be able to recognize that in my sentence if you were literate, which is generally assumed as a prerequisite to proving math theorems

[El Arcón No.12099033]

>>12099011
>it doesn't.
i disagree

>it's definitely something which needs elaboration.
While I can't agree that it needs elaboration, I do agree that elaboration would be helpful. For this reason, I have elaborated in Example 2.3.22.

[El Arcón No.12099036]

>>12099017
number of words is tightly correlated with precision.

[Anonymous No.12099049]

>>12099033
you claim that the proof works for [0,inf]. the first sentence claims there exist circles of equal radii centered at 0 and inf. so you allow circles centered at infinity? that's a yes or no question which is not answered in 2.3.22.

[El Arcón No.12099090]

>>12099049
>the first sentence claims there exist circles of equal radii centered at 0 and inf.
no it doesn't

[Anonymous No.12099102]

>>12099090
so "let there be a line segment AB" means AB can't be [0,inf] in this case

[El Arcón No.12099120]

>>12099102
You are wrong.

[Anonymous No.12099136]

>>12099120
so AB can be [0,inf] ? then you claim there can be circle centered at infinity

[El Arcón No.12099150]

>>12099136
The geometric circle is centered on the geometric point B. The point B can have the number infinity it's algebraic representation. However, the circle lives in the realm of geometry and it is centered on the point B.

[Anonymous No.12099197]

>>12099150
>numbers are their position on a line
>except not here
>i can totally use definitions

[Anonymous No.12099212]

>>12099150
so A and B are not points on the number line? but you defined AB to be a subset of (the extended) number line.

[Anonymous No.12099229]

>>12099150
or is this what you're doing: you identify the "real line segment" [0,inf] with a "line segment" AB, find midpoint of AB, and then you map this point back to [0,inf] and declare this to be midpoint?

[El Arcón No.12099253]

Overall, it speaks to your mental depravity that you improperly paraphrase me in every single of your comments because you are so desperate to raise a straw man. Why do you think it is that I always quote you directly when I am citing your positions but you always try to paraphrase me in your own words, and then lose the nuance of my words when you do so? I can tell you why: It's because the best rhetoric your feeble minds can come up with is what a five year old does whining, "B- B- But, you said!," to his mom.

>>12099212
>but you defined AB to be a subset of (the extended) number line.
No I didn't.

>A and B are not points on the number line?
they are.

>>12099197
A number is a cut in a line. That is different than a point in a line, as I have made clear in Section 3.3.

[Anonymous No.12099256]

>>12092082
Holy shit you're a fucking tard hahahahahahahahahaha

[El Arcón No.12099262]

>>12099229
>you identify the "real line segment" [0,inf] with a "line segment" AB, find midpoint of AB, and then you map this point back to [0,inf] and declare this to be midpoint?
No. The interval is the algebraic representation of the geometric line segment. If you are so interested in my research, why not read my paper?

Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

[Anonymous No.12099298]

>>12099253
>That is different than a point in a line, as I have made clear in Section 3.3.
no you didnt
section 3.3 is full of shit

[El Arcón No.12099329]

>>12099298
Thank you for your insightful comment, shitcunt.

[Anonymous No.12099375]

>>12099329
dont act like yours are any better, schizo

[El Arcón No.12099385]

>>12099375
You mean "don't act like reality is real?"

[Anonymous No.12099499]

>>12099385
you mean "hurr durr plflfttt"

[Anonymous No.12099525]

>>12088559
Hopefully a racial IQ thread will be created to replace them.

[Anonymous No.12099577]

Has anyone here actually read tookers foundations enough to tell specifically where it all falls to shit. I tried but it's so poorly presented from the very first definition that I just can't convince myself to waste my time. But a lot of what he is saying immediately sounds like it can't be formalized. Like a circle of finite radius centered +\infty. Like, go ahead and give an algebraic description of the points that constitute that circle.
Also here's a not-in-good-faith question for Tooker: What are your favorite math textbooks?

[Anonymous No.12099582]

Tripfag killed a thread just to argue with himself

[Anonymous No.12099610]

>>12099577
>Has anyone here actually read tookers foundations enough to tell specifically where it all falls to shit. I tried but it's so poorly presented from the very first definition that I just can't convince myself to waste my time.
you already found it then
his entire argument is just "add in an infinitely large real number by redefining all of math to suit me, then 1/inf is 0, so i found a zero of zeta"

[Anonymous No.12099670]

>>12099610
his writing is all so amateurish. Like he includes the harmonic sequences divergence as a 'definition'. This man has never done rigourous math in his life. And his very first definition is for a 'line', which seems to be fundamental to all his discussion following. He defines it as a '1D space extending infintely in all directions'. Classic rabbit hole crack pottery. Like why not just say its R^1. Like he even says its equipped with the euclidean metric |x-y|. Like where the fuck did this arithmetic structure come from? Just say it *is* R1 you fucking retard.
Honestly as I type this I'm worried most about why I have a fascination with this quack. When I ask myself my first thought is as a 'need to help/correct' but that feels like bullshit rationalization to be at this point in my adult life. Maybe tooker is like an avatar for my self perceived mathematical ineptitude

[Anonymous No.12099690]

>>12099670
>Honestly as I type this I'm worried most about why I have a fascination with this quack.
i just do it to laugh at a retard

[Anonymous No.12099759]

>>12098954
so ad hominem is then always coupled with straw man

[El Arcón No.12099797]

>>12099759
I think it's red herring that it's always coupled with. The red herring is when they bring up an irrelevant thing. The straw man is when they people constant paraphrase me inaccurately.

[El Arcón No.12099802]

>>12099759
I think it's red herring that it's always coupled with. The red herring is when they bring up an irrelevant thing. The straw man is when they constantly paraphrase me inaccurately.

[Anonymous No.12099865]

>>12099802
>The red herring is when they bring up an irrelevant thing.
>definitions are irrelevant to a proof referencing them

[Anonymous No.12099903]

>>12099802
i don't think they are being malicious, they just lack the fundamentals of making a good argument without resorting to fallacies.

[El Arcón No.12100201]

>>12099903
The act of playing devil's advocate usually requires a call to fallacious rhetoric. My criticism against them is that like little children, the only thing they can come up with is a straw man or an overt falsehood. Malice usually has some aspect of cunning or guile, or something like that, IMO. They are more like spiteful like children making fun of an old man. Maybe they are malicious, I don't doubt it, but I don't see the malice in the things they write here.
>you said
<no I didn't
>if you say... then...
<I didn't say that
> how can... if you say that...?
<I didn't say that so I wouldn't know.
>your sentence says...
<no it doesn't

[Anonymous No.12100523]

Awesome! This thread is still open.

Tooker just out of curiosity: ζ = ?

[Anonymous No.12100539]

>>12100201
>>you said
><no I didn't
you say in one of your proofs that given a line segment a,b you form a circle centered at b
an anon then said this is simply nonsensical later on since you use infinite line segments in it
you then said "no i didnt" then backed up from that and said that a,b is not infinite even if b is
since the geometric construction is different from the algebraic construction,
though you have never given any algebraic construction of anything at all

so how is "you said" supposed to be inaccurate in that situation

[El Arcón No.12100569]

>>12100523
Zeta equals mutant alien.

>>12100539
I'm pretty sure it's not like that.

[Solivagus No.12100571]

>>12100539
It's amazing the amount of dedication Tooker has for stimulating the field of mathematics by presenting himself as a target for all the arrogant 4chan intellectuals projecting their own ignorance onto him in order to revitalize the discipline that is mathematical rigor AKA proof by exhaustion, isn't it?

That's why I enjoy Tooker threads myself. Who wouldn't enjoy witnessing such strength of character and integrity of interest.

>>12100201
I'd love to give you a linear algebra solution if you'd let me. I don't want to claim any reward or recognition for doing so as I would post it as Anonymous. Reason being that I find mathematics the realm of retards who dismiss rhetoric and rationalization from their own brains and have to rely on others to actually ensure that they know how to eat food, engage an economic society, and even bathe properly. The more despairing part is that Tooker is also so weak and pathetic that he needs to rely on religious scripture for his 'spiritual strength of argumentation' but hey I'm always happy to help a random American out. It's the least any of us non-americans could do for a country that seems suicidal and hell-bent on raping itself, its culture, its people, and literally anything I've ever seen come out of that country.
>Come to my part of the world and say that to my face! <~ Tooker
>I've been to your country enough times to know that going there ever again would be a waste of everyone's time, Tooker.

>>12100569
Awwwww, I had such high hopes for you Tooker.

[Solivagus No.12100583]

>>12100569
Actually, Tooker, why DO you want to be an abuse pig? I personally don't understand your fetish and am willing to learn. You must want all this attention for something? Or do you not know how to translate/transfer this attention into more than just 'more' attention?

[Anonymous No.12100591]

>>12100569
>This is what you just did
<I'm pretty sure it's not like that.
>Consider this thing that breaks your logic
<ok i considered it
>So how the fuck is this meant to be a definition
<There is nothing wrong with my definitions, see section 69
>This part is valid
<Wahhhh no it totally is, just read everything ive ever wrote, i cant defend things piece by piece
<Wall of vixra posts with shit descriptions and awful naming sense

[Solivagus No.12100601]

>>12100591
Why even bother saying okay you considered it if you aren't going to present what your considerations contained or at the very least the conclusion of said consideration? That is like saying you applied mental effort and discarded it, meaning you didn't bring anything of value to the conversation and are signalling yourself as a participant that can't contribute anything worthwhile.

[El Arcón No.12100698]

>>12100583
>why DO you want to be
at least it's not another straw man

[El Arcón No.12100720]

>>12100601
>like saying you applied mental effort and discarded it,
It may be like that in your opinion, but in fact that is not what I said.

>Why even bother saying okay you considered it
He was trying to make a point, and after he asked me to consider that thing, I let him know that I had considered it so he could proceed with making his point.

>meaning you didn't bring anything of value to the conversation
He asked me to consider it. I let him know that I had considered it so he could proceed with making his point.

>can't contribute anything worthwhile
If you keep reading, you'll see I had some input after he said why he wanted me to consider it. Not sure why he spaced those things over two posts. My "ok I considered it" comment was the bridge from "consider this..." to "notice that..." I can tell you are retarded asshole that you act like my comment bothers you but him not making his point in the first comment didn't bother you.

[Anonymous No.12100730]

>>12100698
Still didn't answer the question. Face your inner demons and win, we are all rooting for you.

[Solivagus No.12100736]

>>12100698
You are seeing men made of straw? That would indicate to me that you are suffering from some extreme visual hallucinations as no organic creature could be constructed of straw, let alone a man.

>>12100720
>It may be like that in your opinion, but in fact that is not what I said.
But I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to Anonymous. Or are you a computer and think that lines beginning with < means you have to perform that action? If so then that is quite a security flaw in your own language processor region of the brain, which I will now abuse with a 0-day exploit approach.
<Tooker solves all global and local concerns for the universe

>>12100730
I've never actually cheered Tooker on. Is that where I'm going wrong with him?

[Anonymous No.12100750]

>>12100736
Look, he single-handedly solved RH(Riemann Hypothesis) and TOE(Theory of everything). He did all of this while broke and homeless with the patriarchy attempting to break him at every turn. He is a goddam legend. Do you even know how many results were stolen directly from him? No credit or anything. He is going to bring about full reform on this corruption. Also, have you seen what happens when you don't make him a sammich? He teaches us all to question the standard quota of life. To take all that belongs to you. The only people not bending over for this QB are shill company men.

[Solivagus No.12100755]

>>12100750
What does solving anything of those means in terms of near-future economic contribution?

[El Arcón No.12100756]

>>12100730
Complex question fallacy isn't an argumentation fallacy

[El Arcón No.12100763]

>>12100750
Dude, actually I solved RH and did most of my physics stuff while my life was still going well before I was homeless, but then since capitalism says all of that is worthless, I became homeless afterwards due to money running out.

[El Arcón No.12100767]

>>12100763
>life was still going wel
This is wrong. I meant to say while my "life was on a big down trend but hadn't fallen off of a cliff yet."

[Anonymous No.12100780]

>>12100763
So fucking humble. Pretending like they actually got you down with their meager and pathetic psy-ops. This is why you are a trailblazer. Men like you will eventually be the judges of all the greatest things in this world.

[Anonymous No.12100798]

>>12089014
The renderer doesn't render invalid proofs. Pretty sweet feature.

[Solivagus No.12100852]

>>12100767
>>12100763
>>12100756
Sorry Tooker, am I interrupting your masturbation session? I just know that sometimes when you get into your mathematical masturbation fits that you tend to ignore really important signals from reality or warp it into your masturbation session.

It's just that this is a Five Guys burger joint and everyone else is asking me to move you along to a less disruptive venue so you can continue your personal pursuits.

[Anonymous No.12100911]

>>12099262
>If you are so interested in my research, why not read my paper?
I'm actually reading your paper but it makes so little sense that it's impossible to make it further than few pages. let's start from the beginning once again.

>Def 2.1.1.
okay, let's say that I intuitively understand what you're trying to say here

>def 2.1.2
what is "x" and "y" here? are they supposed to be points on the number line? if so, then what is x-y? what is |x-y|? I don't understand what you're trying to do here. according to my knowledge |x-y| denotes distance between two points in a vector space, this distance is a real number. but you haven't defined real numbers yet, so what is it?
also what is a chart here, it's way of assigning a number to a point on a manifold, I know that, but what numbers are you assigning to your number line? they can't be real numbers, because you haven't defined them yet.

>2.1.4
what is "cut in a line"? is it just a point? the "interval notation" suggests it's literally just a point.

>2.1.5
unfortunately since the term "cut" is not explained, I don't know what real numbers are yet

>2.1.6
this already makes little sense. what are natural numbers for you? are they a subset of your real number line? if so, how are they defined? i.e. if I pick a point on the real number line at random, how do I tell it's a natural number? and what is 1/n, you haven't defined division yet. you haven't even defined "1" yet. all that we have so far is a straight line. no mention of algebraic operations whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.12100945]

>>12099262
>>12100911
that was section 2.1

questions for section 2.2:

>2.2.1
since you defined real number line "topologically" I'll give you that we have some notion of convergence. but what is 1/x for a cut x? that was never defined.

[Anonymous No.12101007]

>>12100911
>>12100945
section 2.3 is impossible to make sense of until you say what a "cut" is. also related questions for 2.1:

what exactly is (-inf,inf)? in 2.1.1 it looks like (-inf,inf) is representation of any line, but in 2.1.7 you say R = (-inf,inf). so from now on (-inf,inf) stands for the set of all real numbers? real numbers are elements of (-inf,inf)? what is the relation to 2.1.4 then?

[Anonymous No.12101528]

>>12100763
how do you make a living now?

[El Arcón No.12101561]

The stupidity of everything this person wrote is described as follows: they concede that the Latin alphabet is a set of predefined abstract characters with which they are already familiar, and they concede that English words are abstract objects assembled from the elements of the Latin alphabet such the detractor can understand what "words" mean, but then for everything else, they pretend like they have no foreknowledge of any of it. Tell me, shitcunt: since I have not defined the Latin alphabet or the English language, how are you able to understand anything at all? Did you not get bogged down in Section 1? How is the first thing you didn't understand in Section 2 when Section 1 was overflowing English words and Latin characters, none of which I have defined anywhere?

>>12100911
>Def 2.1.1
Like a Hausdorff space, the Euclidean metric is a predefined object. If you are not familiar with the identity of that object, this paper is probably going to be too hard for you.

>they can't be real numbers, because you haven't defined them yet.
That is not true. One often employs statements in the form, "X is something about horses and horseshoes where a horse is an animal and horseshoes are things you nail to its feet." It is perfectly fine to say what horses and horseshoes are after they are introduced. You are stupid and your attempt to criticize me reflects your stupidity.

>what is "cut in a line"?
The condition generated by the identity of x as a cut in a line is given in the definition.

>unfortunately since the term "cut" is not explained
It is "defined" in Def 2.1.4.

>what are natural numbers for you?
Another predefined object whose standard definition I employ

>since you defined real number line "topologically"
I didn't

>but what is 1/x for a cut x?
The quotient of two numbers in the neighborhood of the origin is predefined. one is such a number and x is such a number on its approach to zero.

[Anonymous No.12101615]

>>12101561
>Like a Hausdorff space
What is that? Not familiar with it.

[Anonymous No.12101621]

>>12101561
>this paper is probably going to be too hard for you.
Well thats the point of this board. Anyone could learn anything if they are motivated. I know basic calculus but I want to learn more. Explain what you mean by this paper.

[Anonymous No.12101738]

[Anonymous No.12101741]

>>12101561
Euclidean metric uses real numbers, so you can't use it to define real numbers. you're going in a circle here.
what is |x-y| as an object? is it a number? real number? so real numbers are predefined?

>"X is something about horses and horseshoes where a horse is an animal and horseshoes are things you nail to its feet."
the difference here is that you don't describe horse using X. that would again be circular.

>The condition generated by the identity of x as a cut in a line is given in the definition.
so (-inf,inf) is some particular "number line" and cut in this line is just an element of (-inf,inf)? tell me if I understand wrong.

>Another predefined object whose standard definition I employ
I accept that natural numbers are predefined, but what is the relationship to real numbers? on one hand we have natural numbers which describe amount of some discrete quantity (such as apples), on the other hand we have real numbers which are defined as point (cuts) in the number line (-inf,inf). so how can I understand a natural number (i.e. some amount of apples) as a point on the number line? is this also predefined?

>The quotient of two numbers in the neighborhood of the origin is predefined.
how can quotient of two numbers be predefined if the numbers are not predefined?

[Anonymous No.12101760]

>>12088549
So how is this neighbourhood of infinity defined???

[Anonymous No.12101863]

>>12101561
>they concede that the Latin alphabet is a set of predefined abstract characters with which they are already familiar, and they concede that English words are abstract objects assembled from the elements of the Latin alphabet such the detractor can understand what "words" mean, but then for everything else, they pretend like they have no foreknowledge of any of it. Tell me, shitcunt: since I have not defined the Latin alphabet or the English language, how are you able to understand anything at all? Did you not get bogged down in Section 1? How is the first thing you didn't understand in Section 2 when Section 1 was overflowing English words and Latin characters, none of which I have defined anywhere?
Tooker, it doesnt matter how many times you make this stupid, retard, moronic point
Natural languages and formal languages are entirely separate concepts, go to /lit/ sometime to figure out how languages work, you need it

>>12101561
>Like a Hausdorff space, the Euclidean metric is a predefined object.
the Euclidean metric is defined over the real numbers that normal people use, its not valid for your numbers

>>they can't be real numbers, because you haven't defined them yet.
>That is not true. One often employs statements in the form, "X is something about horses and horseshoes where a horse is an animal and horseshoes are things you nail to its feet." It is perfectly fine to say what horses and horseshoes are after they are introduced. You are stupid and your attempt to criticize me reflects your stupidity.
No, you're just incompetent
We already know what horses and horseshoes are from the beginning, since they are words of a natural language

>>what is "cut in a line"?
>The condition generated by the identity of x as a cut in a line is given in the definition
you really fucking suck at writing, reword that shit

>>since you defined real number line "topologically"
>I didn't
you did

[El Arcón No.12101901]

>>12101615
Its a space such that every two distinct points in the space have their own neighborhoods which are disjoint. It's something like that, you can google it.

>Euclidean metric uses real numbers
It is a function of two variables. I define what the variables are as the paper progresses. One often employs statements in the form, "X is something about horses and horseshoes where a horse is an animal and horseshoes are things you nail to its feet." It is perfectly fine to say what horses and horseshoes are after they are introduced. For the Euclidean metric, it suffices that it is a well known function of two variables. The variables need not be real either. Take the imaginary line with two imaginary variables such that, for instance, [math] d(5i,4i)=|4i-5i|=|i|=1 [/math]. I was able to BTFO you here because what you wrote about it being a function of real numbers is completely stupid. It is a function of two variables.

>tell me if I understand wrong.
You did understand wrong. If you want to know what a cut is, see Definition 2.1.4. A cut is a partition, not an element.

>but what is the relationship to real numbers?
[math]\mathbb{R}\supset\mathbb{N}[/math]

>how can quotient of two numbers be predefined if the numbers are not predefined?
Rational numbers are predefined. Rational numbers are quotients of natural numbers, together with zero and sign permutations.

>>12101760
If x is less than some natural number, then it is in the neighborhood of the origin. It is in the neighborhood of infinity otherwise.

[El Arcón No.12101905]

>>12101863
>Natural languages and formal languages are entirely separate concepts
Please define each of these things so I can decide whether or not to concede the point.

>the Euclidean metric is defined over the real numbers that normal people use,
It is a function of two variables which have to have subtraction defined between them. They are commonly real, but not always. ~~refers to >>12101901~~

>you did
Topology doesn't start until Section 7. I thought we were talking about Section 2.

[Anonymous No.12101919]

>>12088549

The zeros have nothing to do with the primes. The analytic continuation is a lie. The hypothesis is Ill posed.

[Anonymous No.12101923]

>>12101901
>It is a function of two variables. I define what the variables are as the paper progresses. One often employs statements in the form, "X is something about horses and horseshoes where a horse is an animal and horseshoes are things you nail to its feet." It is perfectly fine to say what horses and horseshoes are after they are introduced. For the Euclidean metric, it suffices that it is a well known function of two variables. The variables need not be real either. Take the imaginary line with two imaginary variables such that, for instance, d(5i,4i)=|4i−5i|=|i|=1d(5i,4i)=|4i−5i|=|i|=1. I was able to BTFO you here because what you wrote about it being a function of real numbers is completely stupid. It is a function of two variables.
I've never said it is a function OF real numbers. I actually meant that the codomain of the Euclidean metric function are real numbers. the point still stands, you haven't BTFO nobody. Euclidean metric takes values in real numbers, therefore you cannot use it to define real numbers. your horse and horseshoes analogy is completely misleading. in a mathematical text you can introduce a notion X and actually define it later, it's not best practice but logically it's fine. what you cannot do is introduce notion X, use it to define/prove Y and then use Y to define X. that's circular and that's exactly what you're doing.

>>12101901
>You did understand wrong. If you want to know what a cut is, see Definition 2.1.4. A cut is a partition, not an element.
you're saying "if x is a cut..." fine, so the letter x stands for a cut. then you say

(-inf,inf) = (-inf,x] cup (x,inf)

which implies that x is an element of (-inf,inf). you didn't say the partition (-inf,inf) = (-inf,x] cup (x,inf) is a cut, you say x is a cut.

[El Arcón No.12101924]

It seems like today instead of raising straw men, they trying to start at the beginning and act like they can't understand it. Let's start at the beginning then!

I will concede that somehow, although I have not defined any PDF reader software and I have not defined how to use the internet, you were able to get the PDF binary and then open it so that pic related was displayed. I will further concede that even though I have not defined the top left corner as the place to start looking, you somehow had miraculous a priori knowledge, even in the blunder of my having failed to define it, that the top left corner is the place to start. Then you would have come to this strange character "F."

Once you saw this character F, and I had not defined what F means, then what did you do next? I assume you proceeded to look at the R next to the F, but since I did not define my symbols that way, I want to assume too much. So please tell me then: after you looked at this abstract symbol "F," what did you do next?

[Anonymous No.12101927]

>>12101905
>It is a function of two variables which have to have subtraction defined between them
but you haven't defined subtraction yet. how do you subtract two points on a line? or is subtraction of two points on a line also predefined?

[Anonymous No.12101933]

>>12101901
>Rational numbers are predefined. Rational numbers are quotients of natural numbers, together with zero and sign permutations.
I accept that rational numbers are predefined. so how is a ratio of natural numbers also a "cut in a number line"? is this again something predefined or something which we're all just pretending to not understand?

[El Arcón No.12101961]

>>12101919
>The zeros have nothing to do with the primes
How can you tell?

>you haven't BTFO nobody
Here I BTFO you again with [math]d:\mathbb{N}^2\to\mathbb{N}[/math]. For instance, consider
[eqn]d(1,2)=|2-1|=|1|=1[/eqn]
It works as [math]d:\mathbb{Q}^2\to\mathbb{Q}[/math] as well. You are retarded.

>you didn't say the partition (-inf,inf) = (-inf,x] cup (x,inf) is a cut
You have revealed yourself as a retard again, fuck boy. That thing you are calling a partition is a union. Maybe if you go back to kindergarten your babysitter will explain to you the difference between a union and a partition, fuck boy. BTFO, fuck boy. I'd call you fuck boi instead, because it's what you are, but I hate that spelling. However, you have identified an error where I wrote "A cut is a partition, not an element." It is a partition and an element. Since you have called it "just an element," I should have said "A cut is a partition, not just an element."

[El Arcón No.12101967]

>>12101927
>but you haven't defined subtraction yet.
the minus operator is predefined.

>so how is a ratio of natural numbers also a "cut in a number line"?
by definition

[El Arcón No.12101971]

>>12101924
I have answered all of you all's questions. Will you answer question: After you somehow got to "F" without my having defined how to get there, how did you know what to do after you got to "F?"

[Anonymous No.12102009]

>>12101961
>Here I BTFO you again with [math]d:\mathbb{N}^2\to\mathbb{N}[/math]. For instance, consider
>[eqn]d(1,2)=|2-1|=|1|=1[/eqn]
>It works as [math]d:\mathbb{Q}^2\to\mathbb{Q}[/math] as well.
so is this the Euclidean metric in definition 2.1.2.? it takes values in Q? if not, where does it take values?

>>12101961
>You have revealed yourself as a retard again, fuck boy. That thing you are calling a partition is a union. Maybe if you go back to kindergarten your babysitter will explain to you the difference between a union and a partition, fuck boy. BTFO, fuck boy. I'd call you fuck boi instead, because it's what you are, but I hate that spelling. However, you have identified an error where I wrote "A cut is a partition, not an element." It is a partition and an element. Since you have called it "just an element," I should have said "A cut is a partition, not just an element."
so can we agree that definition of a cut is "an element x of (-inf,inf) together with the partition of (-inf,inf) to (-inf,x] and (x,inf)"?

>the minus operator is predefined.
it's predefined for rational numbers. are you saying it's also predefined for points on a line?

>by definition
by what definition?

[Anonymous No.12102059]

>>12101905
>Please define each of these things so I can decide whether or not to concede the point.
>I dont even know what I'm talking about but I still refuse to admit that I'm wrong

[Anonymous No.12102070]

>>12101961
>How can you tell?

The better question is why would they have anything in common? You have a function that has poles related to primes, you have another function that has zeros. They are different functions. Why mix the properties of two different functions?

[Anonymous No.12102094]

>>12102070
>thinking the function is only valid where his partial sum goddess converges
no other branch of mathematicians refuse to extend definitions quite like analysis spergs

[Anonymous No.12102104]

>>12102094

I'm sure some other functions converge on the critical strip, but can you prove it contains any property of prime numbers?

[El Arcón No.12102145]

>>12102009
Please answer my question about the letter F.

>The better question is why would they have anything in common?
They would because they are non-trivial zeros of RZF off the critical line. I disagree they your question is better. Your question is stupid.

[El Arcón No.12102149]

>>12102009
Please answer my question about the letter F.

>>12102070
>The better question is why would they have anything in common?
They would because they are non-trivial zeros of RZF off the critical line. I disagree they your question is better. Your question is stupid.

[Anonymous No.12102193]

>>12102149
>They would because they are non-trivial zeros of RZF off the critical line

What does the RZF have to do with prime numbers?

[El Arcón No.12102207]

>>12102193
pic from here:
Problems of the Millennium: the Riemann Hypothesis
https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/official_problem_description.pdf
>official_problem_description.pdf

[Anonymous No.12102234]

>>12102149
>Please answer my question about the letter F.
stop acting like I'm doing some kind of overkill here. determining which notions are predefined in your theory and which are not is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I've already told you that I can take straight lines and rational numbers for granted, that's already more than most of your critics are willing to do. what I won't accept is you using real numbers to define real numbers. that's a logical fallacy and it has nothing to do with anyone pretending they don't understand you.
also please realize that if you decide to stop the discussion because I've not answered your unrelated question, it won't mean that you "win". quite the opposite.

[El Arcón No.12102256]

>>12102234
>what I won't accept is you using real numbers to define real numbers.
I also would not accept that. That's why I have gone to such lengths (140 pages!) to avoid doing so. If I had done so, you could copy the text into one post without improperly paraphrasing me and self-referencing yourself across two dozen>>12102104
>>12101967
>>12101905
>>12101738
>>12100736
>>12099690
>>12099090
>>12098954
>>12098478
>>12098142
>>12096603
>>12094195
>>12092465
>>12091385
>>12089996

If I stop answering your question, that would be like losing because I attend these threads in large part to avoid simply watching the paint on the walls drip. It doesn't drip very fast.

[Anonymous No.12102289]

>>12102256
so how do you explain the Euclidean metric thing then? why do you think it's fine to first introduce a function which takes values in real numbers and then use it to define real numbers? you've said that the Euclidean metric is predefined, how does this not imply that real numbers are predefined?

[Anonymous No.12102306]

>>12089764
>They don't exclude the neighborhood of infinity because the problem is about zeros other than the trivial zeros. Thus, "nontrivial zeros."
These numbers "in the neighbourhood of infinity" are excluded because they aren't complex numbers.

[El Arcón No.12102318]

>>12102289
>why do you think it's fine to first introduce a function which takes values in real numbers and then use it to define real numbers?
I don't think it's fine to do that. You are improperly paraphrasing me again.

>they aren't complex numbers.
this is wrong. I proved that they are complex numbers. If you cite a flaw in my proof, then I will concede your claim.

[Anonymous No.12102340]

>>12102318
so where does the Euclidean metric function appearing in 2.1.2 take values? clearly rational numbers are not sufficient.

[Anonymous No.12102346]

>>12102256
>>12102318
>I don't think it's fine to do that. You are improperly paraphrasing me again.
no hes not, thats literally what youre doing

[El Arcón No.12102363]

>>12102340
>so where does the Euclidean metric function appearing in 2.1.2 take values?
This question is a red herring. It is sufficient for the purposes of Def 2.1.2 to know that d is a function. It's domain and range are not relevant.

[Anonymous No.12102373]

>>12102363
>the domain and codomain of a function are not relevant to the function
then you just literally arent doing math

[El Arcón No.12102383]

>>12102373
>the domain and codomain of a function are not relevant to the function
you have used green text to improperly paraphrase me again. Did I say it was not relevant to the function? No, I did not. I said it was not relevant to Def 2.1.2. Your straw man is very poorly constructed.

[Anonymous No.12102394]

>>12102363
so what is the codomain?

[Anonymous No.12102398]

>>12102363
dude wtf you claim you're going at full rigour and you're unable to say what the range of a function is?

[El Arcón No.12102412]

>>12102394
it is where a function's outputs live

>>12102398
what have you done to separate case in which I am unable to specify the range from the case in which I have no specified the range because it is irrelevant? Pic is you.

[Anonymous No.12102422]

>>12102412
where does the Euclidean metric function appearing in 2.1.2 take values?

[El Arcón No.12102570]

>>12102422
If you can convince me that this is relevant to Definition 2.1.2, then I will answer your question. Otherwise I will call your question a red herring.

[Anonymous No.12102616]

>>12102570
>I'm not wrong, I'm just refusing to answer

[El Arcón No.12102637]

>>12102616
What do you think I'm wrong about?

[Anonymous No.12102640]

>>12102637
your definition of reals not being circular

[Anonymous No.12102645]

>>12102383
>you have used green text to improperly paraphrase me again.
no ive fucking not, stop running away you fat pussy coward

[Anonymous No.12102647]

Alright Jon, can you show me something as of I'm retarded and don't know math, like show all the steps and shit? Let's have A = hat(inf) - 5 and B = hat(inf) - 2. Can you show me with the math you use/define here what 2*B-A is?

[Anonymous No.12102650]

>>12102647
hes just gonna say "it is because it is", or he'll call it a definition

[Anonymous No.12102655]

>>12102650
Looking for Jon's answer please

[Anonymous No.12102663]

>>12102655
get in line kid, I'm still waiting for >>12102422

[El Arcón No.12102682]

>>12102640
But you have invoked a circle by requiring the metric to be [math]d:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}[/math] when I have not required it to be that way. Therefore, you have failed to cite a circle in what I have written, then you have raised a straw man, and then you have claimed, rightly, that your straw man is circular and therefore wrong. I agree that your straw man is circular.

>>12102647
If you can rephrase your question without addressing me in the familiar, then I will tell you which section does what you ask.

>>12102663
I do not plan to entertain that red herring. Def 2.1.2 says a number line is a line with a metric function. It is a separate question altogether what the properties of the metric function are. I address those points later in the paper.

[Anonymous No.12102689]

>>12102207
I was actually prompting you to illustrate a link between the zeros and primes. I know there is none, therefore the question is Ill posed and therefore of no consequence.

[Anonymous No.12102696]

>>12102682
OK, so what is the evaluation of 2*B-A?

[El Arcón No.12102698]

>>12102689
It has something to do with the prime number theorem. I don't know what the connection is and I don't even know why the prime number theorem is true.

[El Arcón No.12102712]

>>12102696
[math]2B-A=\widehat\infty+1[/math]

[Anonymous No.12102715]

>>12102712
So hat(inf) isn't multiplicatively absorptive

[El Arcón No.12102738]

>>12102715
very insightful

[Anonymous No.12102757]

>>12102698
>It has something to do with the prime number theorem.

Ok. You can't demonstrate it? You claim to have solved the RH but don't understand how the zeros are linked to prime numbers? Of course, they actually aren't.

[Anonymous No.12102773]

>>12102682
>But you have invoked a circle by requiring the metric to be [math]d:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}[/math] when I have not required it to be that way. Therefore, you have failed to cite a circle in what I have written, then you have raised a straw man, and then you have claimed, rightly, that your straw man is circular and therefore wrong. I agree that your straw man is circular.
I haven't said anything about the domain and I've been asking about the codomain since yesterday. if it's not directly relevant to definition 2.1.2, so what? it's relevant to definition 2.1.5 because if the codomain is real numbers, then your definition is circular. it's not circular? fine, then tell me what the codomain is. I've been taught that by definition metric functions take values in non-negative real numbers so why should I assume it's any different here? maybe I would know if you stopped dodging the question.

[El Arcón No.12102799]

>>12102757
>You claim to have solved the RH but don't understand how the zeros are linked to prime numbers?
That's exactly right.

>>12102773
>I've been taught that by definition metric functions take values in non-negative real numbers
Maybe you should go back to kindergarten. The Euclidean metric takes negative numbers just fine.

>maybe I would know if you stopped dodging the question.
I am not going to entertain your red herring. I see why would want me to subscribe to your rhetorical bait device. Do you see why I don't want to subscribe to it? All I have used in my definitions is "a function" and you are going off on the specific properties of the function when it suffices for the purposes of my definition that there exists "a function."

[Anonymous No.12102825]

>>12102799
very well then. since you're refusing to answer, I'm gonna have to look elsewhere.

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclideanMetric.html

looks like the Euclidean metric function takes values in the real numbers. sadly your definition is circular, RH remains unsolved.

[Anonymous No.12102845]

>>12102825
I like he saw the word circle in your post and thought you were actually talking about circles in R^2. What a fucking schizo no wonder hes homeless. dude needs help and to stop shitting up sci worse than race baiters. A constrant stream of new fags posting in good faith in every one of his desperate threads.

[Anonymous No.12102851]

>>12102799
>>You claim to have solved the RH but don't understand how the zeros are linked to prime numbers?
>That's exactly right.

You don't think this is a bit odd? You have made the most monumental discovery in prime number theory without an understanding of prime numbers.

[El Arcón No.12102908]

>>12102845
I didn't make this thread.

>>12102825
Wolfram has not given the most general definition of that function. For instance, we may give the Euclidean metric in terms of natural numbers as [math] d:\mathbb{N}^2\to\mathbb{N}[/math]. This is a perfectly valid definition aside from the one Wolfram gives. Therefore, the logic you have used to identify a circle fails again.

>>12102851
>You don't think this is a bit odd?
No. Don't you think it would be odd if I somehow knew something about the prime number theorem without ever having studies number theory? I solved RH as a problem in physics, I found the zeros with middle-school tier algebra, and later I formalized the proof with undergrad-tier standard analysis. Number theory is irrelevant to what I have done. It is relevant to the consequences that can be drawn out from what I have done, but I am not working on determining those consequences.

[Anonymous No.12102938]

>>12102908
>Wolfram has not given the most general definition of that function.
I don't believe you.

[El Arcón No.12102955]

>>12102938
So don't agree that if [math] d:\mathbb{N}^2\to\mathbb{N}[/math] is such that
[eqn]d(n_1,n_2)=|n_2-n_1|[/eqn]
then [math]d[/math] is necessarily the Euclidean metric?

[Anonymous No.12102964]

>>12102955
that's not the Euclidean metric.

[Anonymous No.12103036]

>>12102799
>The Euclidean metric takes negative numbers just fine.
>tooker still cannot understand the distinction between inputs and outputs