RH

[Jealous No.14883406]

RH is false. In OP image, I negate RH upon an unproven proposition for expeiency. Elsewhere (below), I negate RH from first principles (Euclidean geometry) without using Prop 1.8 as a crutch. To the extent that algebra is "the study of mathematical symbols and the rules for manipulating them," I don't think there should be much contention over the soundness of Prop 1.8. I assume it only to give a brief exposition of longer proofs published elsewhere.

[Jealous No.14883411]

Rigorous from first principles:

Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/2111.0072
Recent analysis has uncovered a broad swath of rarely considered real numbers called real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity. Here we extend the catalog of the rudimentary analytical properties of all real numbers by defining a set of fractional distance functions on the real number line and studying their behavior. The main results of are (1) to prove with modest axioms that some real numbers are greater than any natural number, (2) to develop a technique for taking a limit at infinity via the ordinary Cauchy definition reliant on the classical epsilon-delta formalism, and (3) to demonstrate an infinite number of non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function in the neighborhood of infinity. We define numbers in the neighborhood of infinity as Cartesian products of Cauchy equivalence classes of rationals. We axiomatize the arithmetic of such numbers, prove all the operations are well-defined, and then make comparisons to the similar axioms of a complete ordered field. After developing the many underlying foundations, we present a basis for a topology.

[Anonymous No.14883414]

>>14883406
you sure do seem to like talking about yourself

[Jealous No.14883416]

Rigorous without Prop 1.8 but also without reinventing the wheel.