RH Thread

[El Arcón No.12263642]

Due to infinity hat and some related issues, the Riemann hypothesis is false. See for yourself in my nice paper:
Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

Stupid criticisms:
1) Definitions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 comprise a circle because the range of the Euclidean metric could be taken as R instead of N or Q, and despite the fact that the line being equipped with "a function" does not depend on the function's range, be it R, Q, N, or any other thing.
2) The neighborhood of infinity is not allowed by the field axioms which did not exist until long after Hilbert's 1899 paper.
3) The neighborhood of infinity is not allowed by the 1872 Dedekind cut and Cauchy definitions which somehow constrain Riemann's 1859 hypothesis.
4) Although algebra is called the study of mathematical symbols and the rules for manipulating them, infinity hat is "magic," not mundane, and therefore it is not allowed.
5) The Archimedes property of real numbers is not what Euclid said it is. It is what Rudin says it is.
6) By the axiom that every real number is less than some natural number, every real number is less than some natural and, therefore, alternative axiomatic schemes are not admissible. The main point of the paper is to show that the modern schemes for R such as the field axioms and Dedekind cuts do not preserve the traditional Euclidean construction of R.
7) Although all the sentences in the paper contain the formal subject-predicate construction, the sentences are actually incomprehensible gibberish.
8) Although Clay explicitly rules out the trivial zeros at the negative integers, zeros which everyone knows are out of scope, they also ruled out the zeros in the neighborhood of infinity but they just didn't do it explicitly like they did with the negative even integers.

Who will add to the list? Anything I forgot?

[Anonymous No.12264452]

>>12263642
You're back. I remember reading your paper two or three years ago when I was an undergraduate.

[El Arcón No.12264623]

>>12264452
Which paper?

[Anonymous No.12264633]

>viXra

Hmmmmmm, no.

[El Arcón No.12264968]

>>12264633
I feel the same way about your life.

[Anonymous No.12265007]

Scholze's theory of diamonds should produce a purely local analogue of F_1, so any sufficiently strong local-to-global phenomenon should suffice to prove RH.

[El Arcón No.12265402]

>>12265007
I BTFOed Scholze's nonsense about all isomorphic objects being the same. Pic related is what Mochizuki calls a Hodge theater. The main point of my idea, and I guess Mochi's, is that you can set up a lattice with distinct instances of H, which is Minkowski space up to perturbations. H also has an attached Hilbert space H' of quantum states that can be observed in the universe H. The states in the Hilbert space are functions the spatial coordinates of H. We say "time doesn't exist in QM" because usually the states in non-relativistic Hilbert space H' are only functions of x,y, and z, but not t. However, 3-space is a slice of 4-space (spacetime) at a constant time. You can have different 3-spaces, all isomorphic, at different times corresponing to different hypersurfaces in spacetime. In Minkowski space, the 3-spaces at any given time are all absolutely isomorphic but when you start adding dynamics, the perturbations can change the 3-metric at each constant time. Therefore, if there are a series of Hilbert spaces H'_n containing wavefunctions who domains are the 3-spaces of a 4-space at different times, they would be distinct. Even though the Hilbert spaces themselves are isomorphic, meaning that the functions in each are the same, if the domain of the functions changes then they are not equal. Even without perturbations, state functions of the 3-space at t_1 are different than the same functions having their domain as the 3-space at t_2. Once you add perturbations to the metric of the underlying 4-space, the differences in the Hilbert spaces became non-trivial. Even when the domains of the functions in the H' change, the functions themselves such as sin(x), cos(x), and exp(ix) are the same so all the Hilbert spaces are isomorphic... but different. Scholze says it's impossible to have isomorphic but unequal objects, but that is not true. The whole point of my model was to construct a lattice of universes instead of a single universe.

[El Arcón No.12265404]

Hairer just won $3M for calling my idea a regularity structure.

[El Arcón No.12265405]

Here you can see this person making obvious that Mochi stole my idea too.

[El Arcón No.12265412]

Weinstein calls my idea geometric unity. Wilczek calls it time crystals.

[El Arcón No.12265415]

I had a whole section in my book about the many people who already stolen my ideas before I even arrived at the unit cell >>12265402

[El Arcón No.12265420]

[El Arcón No.12265422]

[Anonymous No.12265513]

man cranks never cease to put a smile on my face :)