/sci/ - Science & Math

[Jealous No.15487013]

RH is true due to 153 layers of self-referential (circular) nonsense.

[Jealous No.15487021]

Also false due to INFhat though.

[Anonymous No.15487471]

RH seems like the most pointless problem to "prove" because people have already been stacking auxilliary proofs assuming both yes and no for over a century.

[Jealous No.15487720]

[Anonymous No.15487759]

>>15487720
Lol, this is actually gorgeous writing. I hate RH because it's vapid but if you could fuse this style of cartoonishly irreverent mathematical insight to something interesting, I might hate it less.

[Anonymous No.15487768]

not this neighborhood of infinity shit again. infinity is not a real number.

[Cult of Passion No.15487813]

>>15487768
I can imagine a time where people complained about letters being used as numbers and calling them "heretics" or they "have a demon about them". Thousands of years later, and thousands from now, the same character will be complaining about the same sort of things...

[Anonymous No.15487876]

>>15487021
>R is connected
>R has elements larger than n for every natural number N
immediate contradiction

[Anonymous No.15487983]

>>15487813
>I can imagine a time where people complained about letters being used as numbers and calling them "heretics" or they "have a demon about them".
Can you?

[Cult of Passion No.15488024]

>>15487983
>Can you?
Can we?*

[Anonymous No.15488032]

>>15487983
>numbers
>letters being used as
??

[Jealous No.15488859]

>>15487768
If the set is a connected interval of numbers S=[0,5), x=5-1 is in S even though 5 isn't. It's like that on R^+=[0,INFhat) too.

[Anonymous No.15488863]

>bots make bot posts
>bots respond to bot posts
>bots make a thread about the bot posts later
you tooker retards wouldn't even be tolerable if you were not mostly bots. take your ciclejerk to >>>/x/ please.

[Jealous No.15489165]

I posted this on 4chan on October 1, 2018. A few days later, they had this BS story about some sort problem getting solved on 4chan, but that was a psyop designed to obfuscate and distract from my RH negation.
>An anonymous 4chan post could help solve a 25-year-old math mystery
>https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18019464/4chan-anon-anime-haruhi-math-mystery
>Oct 25, 2018

[Jealous No.15489169]

>>15487876
It's not a contradiction. The problem is most likely your lack of thinking and/or reading, but it may be that you're promoting a falsehood knowingly.

[Jealous No.15489171]

>>15488859
It's really remarkable to me how much people insist on the (wrong) idea that INF not being a real number makes numbers in the form x=INF-b also not real numbers. Even if we take a set of disconnected numbers, not a connected interval, S={1,2,3,4,5} for example, there are are at least a few x=10-n in S for some natural number n, and that has literally jack shit to do with 10 not being in S. How is 10 not being in S supposed to disqualify x=10-n from membership in S? They always say it does, but they never say how it does.

[Anonymous No.15490501]

>>15489169
but the sets {x : x < n for some n in N} and {x : x > n for every n in N} are both open, are they not?

[Anonymous No.15490594]

>>15489171
>numbers in the form x=INF-b
What does this mean?

[Jealous No.15491525]

>>15490501
I believe I have shown that they are not both open. For details, I refer you to Section 7 broadly in this PDF: >>15487021, and Section 7.5 specifically regarding "the least upper bound problem" which is what I call the issue I think you're referring to. However, if you would like to ignore what I have already written on the topic I think you're raising, and you wish to state very clearly why you think those must both be open sets, you are likely to get me to engage in scholarly dialogue with you. Unfortunately (or fortunately, as it may be), your non-specific invitation for me to re-write what I've already written does not catch my fancy. So... will you make a case for why you think they must both be open, or nah?

>>15490594
>What does this mean?
>your non-specific invitation for me to re-write what I've already written

[Anonymous No.15491563]

>>15491525
Even if your stuff is not contradictory that wouldnt count as a "proof" of RH or notRH. First definition adds a number that cant be constructed under the cauchy way for real numbers for example (as equivalence classes of cauchy sucesions). Wich real number is ±infinity? Tell me a cauchy sucesion that converges to it. Are we really willing to call that bullshit a real number? And even if we were, just like we are willing to invent a point on the infinity to give any elliptic curve a group structure, who in hell is willing to call that set the set of real numbers and hence any property it should have a theorem of real numbers?

[Anonymous No.15491583]

>>15487876
Yes and you can derive anything from a contradiction so RH is false. Try to keep up noob

[Anonymous No.15492359]

>>15491525
lol you don't even accept that {x : x < n for some natural n} is open? You're telling me that your real numbers contain an x such that x < n for some natural n, but x + 1/2 > N for every N?

[Jealous No.15492857]

>>15491563
>Wich real number is ±infinity?
I can't tell if this sentence has more than one typo in it or if you think infinity is a real number. It seems like don't, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

>>15492359
>lol you don't even accept that {x : x < n for some natural n} is open?
I don't think you're responding to the right person.

[Anonymous No.15493840]

>>15492857
>I don't think you're responding to the right person.
I'm responding to the person >>15491525 who said
>I believe I have shown that they are not both open
where "they" refers to >>15490501
>the sets {x : x < n for some n in N} and {x : x > n for every n in N} are both open
Are you agreeing that the set {x : x < n for some n in N} is open?

[Jealous No.15494425]

>>15493840
Your question suggests that you didn't read the materials I posted. Please cite something I wrote by the article number, e. g. : Theorem 5.5.5, so that I will know you read what I've already written.

[Anonymous No.15494494]

>>15494425
I will cite anything you want from your own article but first you need to answer these two questions
>Is {x : x < n for some n in N} open?
>Is {x : x > n for every n in N}?
with yes, or no, or idk
Your failure to answer these questions will signal your acceptance that both sets are open, and so your real number line is not connected under the traditional definition

[Jealous No.15494686]

>>15494494

[Anonymous No.15495291]

>>15494686
So you gonna take out all references to the real numbers being connected or nah?

[Anonymous No.15495333]

>>15494686
Why can you not answer any questions? The person you're replying to is asking a very simple question in regards to open sets and you can't even directly answer them? Don't just deflect to 'read the paper' if you can't actually sustain an argument here.