/sci/ - Science & Math

[Jealous No.15509669]

RH is false due to real mathematical analysis, which is also called standard analysis. Basically, it's false because tangent is bijective on [0,π/2).

[Jealous No.15509671]

>secret NSA math

[Anonymous No.15509694]

>>15509669
> Basically, it's false because tangent is bijective on [0,π/2).
How would you distinguish that from [0,π/2]?

[Jealous No.15509712]

>>15509694
[math]\tan:(-π/2,π/2)\to\mathbb{R}~~,\quad\text{but}\quad\tan:[-π/2,π/2]\to\overline{\mathbb{R}}[/math]

[Anonymous No.15510333]

>>15509669
It would be poetic if you actually did solve it.
>The first problem was solved by a guy who did not accept the prize
>The second problem was solved buy a guy whose solution was not accepted by clay

[Jealous No.15510398]

>>15510333
I would be surprised if anyone from Clay has seen my paper.

[Anonymous No.15511358]

>>15509669
Interesting stuff, anon. Long time ago that I studied meth. Cursory glance at your claim and remembering what I heard about RH before.
1. Hasn't it been proven that all non-trivial zeroes are on some "critical strip" of finite breadth around the critical line at Im(z)=-1/2?
2. And you claim infinite zeta zeroes are on the real number line near infinity?
Or am I misunderstanding something completely?

[Anonymous No.15511391]

>>15509669
>140 pages
Now THIS is a real Tooker!

[Anonymous No.15511499]

>>15511358
I meant, of course, the critical line at Re(z)=-1/2.
I think I need more meth to understand this paper.

[Jealous No.15511594]

>>15511358
>1. Hasn't it been proven
The result you suggest is a corollary of the theorem of Hadamard and de la Vallee-Poussin. I believe I have demonstrated an error in the corollary related to the neighborhood of infinity. (Remark 8.12 and following articles in pic PDF.) I think the theorem itself, a result proving that there can be no zeros with real part equal to one, also fails in the neighborhood of infinity. I showed that the corollary fails but I don't recall if I showed the error in the underlying theorem. I think it is trivial, either way.
2. And you claim infinite zeta zeroes are on the real number line near infinity?
I claim infinite non-trivial zeros outside the critical strip in the neighborhood of minus real infinity. I show infinite zeros inside and outside the critical strip in the neighborhoods of plus and minus imaginary infinity. Seems like you pretty much got the gist.

[Jealous No.15511603]

>>15511594
>infinite non-trivial zeros outside the critical strip in the neighborhood of minus real infinity. I show infinite zeros inside and outside the critical strip in the neighborhoods of plus and minus imaginary infinity.
When projected onto the Riemann sphere, this asymmetry with positive real infinity generates somr novel characteristic. In fact, the behavior of RZF around the one-point compactified complex infinity is the origin of the John Titor logo. (I, Jon Tooker, am also the inventor of the time circuit.)

[Jealous No.15511605]

page 11

[Jealous No.15511608]

>>15511603
wrong pic, oops

[Jealous No.15511609]

figure 11

[Jealous No.15511610]

QUICK

[Jealous No.15511611]

extremely quick

[Jealous No.15511617]

>>15511391
The 306 page Durham report referred to this 306 page book I wrote about my research in physics.


Sixty-Six Theses: Next Steps and the Way Forward in the Modified Cosmological Model
>https://vixra.org/abs/2206.0152
>http://gg762.net/d0cs/papers/Sixty-Six_Theses__v2-20220726.pdf
The purpose is to review and lay out a plan for future inquiry pertaining to the modified cosmological model (MCM) and its overarching research program. The material is modularized as a catalog of open questions that seem likely to support productive research work. The main focus is quantum theory but the material spans a breadth of physics and mathematics. Cosmology is heavily weighted and some Millennium Prize problems are included. A comprehensive introduction contains a survey of falsifiable MCM predictions and associated experimental results. Listed problems include original ideas deserving further study as well as investigations of others' work when it may be germane. A longstanding and important conceptual hurdle in the approach to MCM quantum gravity is resolved. A new elliptic curve application is presented. With several exceptions, the presentation is high-level and qualitative. Formal analyses are mostly relegated to the future work which is the topic of this book. Sufficient technical context is given that third parties might independently undertake the suggested work units.

[Jealous No.15511627]

>>15511617

[Jealous No.15511629]

[Jealous No.15511631]

[Anonymous No.15512266]

>Definition 2.1.1 A line is a 1D Hausdorff space parameterizable by the identity map on an unbounded scalar.
You call this a definition?
I can already tell you are a quack.
What is a 1D Hausdorff space?
What is an "unbounded scalar"?
Maybe you mean Hausdorff space with Hausdorff dimension 1? But Hausdorff dimension has nothing to do with a space being a Hausdorff space or not. And to determine Hausdorff dimension you need a metric. What is your metric here? It seems you presuppose all kinds of constructs relying on an existing definition of real number on which you then want to base your "definition" of the real numbers.

> Definition 2.1.3 The real number line is a number line given the label “real.”
lol

This paper is Eric Weinstein tear bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15512268]

>>15512266
>This paper is Eric Weinstein tear bullshit.
*tier
Sorry, I am dumb.

[Cult of Passion No.15512287]

>>15512266
>with Hausdorff dimension 1
>Hausdorff dimension has nothing to do with a space being a Hausdorff space or not
>What is your metric
>This paper is Eric Weinstein tear

[Jealous No.15512300]

>>15512266
I find it obnoxiously ironic that you concede a pre-existing knowledge of the Latin alphabet and English language, but then you concede absolutely zero knowledge of the basic mathematical objects. As stupid as it would be for you to try to read without first learning the alphabet, it equally stupid for you to try to read the advanced mathematical literature without first learning the basics of mathematics.

[Jealous No.15512301]

[Anonymous No.15512304]

>>15512300
In math you need to define your stuff in proper order. If you want to give a *definition* of real numbers you can't use pre-existing different definition of it. You dumb subhuman pseud.

[Jealous No.15512478]

>>15512304
In math, one assumes that the audience for mathematical literature is familiar with the rudiments of mathematics. This is like how people write prose assuming the reader is familiar with written language.

[Anonymous No.15512493]

>>15512304
That's why an entire list of textbooks is recommended before higher level stuff. You might want to start lower down the chain if you find yourself encountering definition issues like this.

[Jealous No.15513315]

The expression "x+y" is an ordered pair. The set notation that was the first (and main) equation in my post made it obvious that the ordered pairs were the sums.

[Jealous No.15513332]

In fact, I believe that all binary operations between sets are Cartesian products between those sets.

[Jealous No.15513333]

>>15513315
>>15513332
Yeah. The "unknown structural operation" in my post was clearly the sum. Jew squad just brigaded me for saying exactly what got upvoted in pic related.

[Jealous No.15513335]

>>15513333
>>15513333
>>15513333
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/911787/clarify-cartesian-products-and-binary-operations

[Jealous No.15513342]

The first comment on this other thread says to do exactly what I did: think about the elements. I specifically wrote that the elements were the sums in my main equation.

[Jealous No.15513353]

This answer to the other post says I am technically incorrect, and that may be the case. However, I see that this other person got it explained to them plainly and I got severely jewed.

[Anonymous No.15514283]

>>15509669
>Definition 2.1.3 The real number line is a number line given the label “real.
>Definition 2.1.3 The real number line is a number line given the label “real.
>Definition 2.1.3 The real number line is a number line given the label “real.
>Definition 2.1.3 The real number line is a number line given the label “real.

LMFAO

[Chud Crusher !!RNAeJrdl6uQ No.15514300]

>>15509669
Sorry, Tooker Chud, your "math" doesn't meet the standards of rigor. There are laughable leaps of logic that no CA undergrad would make. And, no, I'm not holding your hand for three hours.
/1pbtid

[Jealous No.15514550]

>>15514300
I may have failed to distinguish between Cartesian products and subsets of Cartesian products but because you have fucked up my account and used the language you used, you and your family are going to burn in hell forever. There was this other post where the poster's error was corrected by the commenters, as per usual, and he got upvoted for making a venue in which his error could be corrected. Rather than correct my error with constructive criticism, you have used my error as an excuse to fuck up my account. Now you and your family are going to burn in hell forever, and I am glad about that.

[Jealous No.15514555]

And, in fact, the reality that you were able to fuck up my post on stackexchange while you were simultaneously aware of my thread on 4chan shows your wicked intentions. I will be glad to hurt you and make you and your people suffer.

[Anonymous No.15517176]

Giving tooker the bump he deserves

[Anonymous No.15518132]

>>15514555
>mogged on stackoverflow
>mogged on 4chan
ez rage more

[Anonymous No.15518157]

I googled Jonathan Tooker out of curiosity and almost all I got was some racism incident

[Cult of Passion No.15518159]

>>15518157
Lol the "Supermarket Slur Incident".

[Anonymous No.15518161]

>>15518157
I can't believe there's a video of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwP_mU-iOsk

[Anonymous No.15518166]

>>15518159
>>15518161
wew lad

[Cult of Passion No.15518168]

>>15518166
>wew lad
Go back.

[Anonymous No.15518178]

>>15518168
Nah I just got back from work, I'm tired

[Cult of Passion No.15518189]

>>15518178
Well...Tookers been at this since 53BC, so...respect your elders.

[Anonymous No.15518198]

>>15518189
lol

I have a question for you smart-asses while he is away, what do you use to make these images (pic)? Pleas don't tell me its tikz/latex

[Cult of Passion No.15518205]

>>15518198
[e-mail]

Why dont you ask him?

[Anonymous No.15518223]

>>15518205
I'm good, faculty are usually assholes, hate dealing with these people, you guys are assholes but at least its anonymous

[Anonymous No.15518241]

>>15511611
retarded and schizopilled.

by your own logic, because infinity has addition absorption it makes no sense to say a number can be represented by some (infinity - b), by your own definition this is infinity.

in any case, the Euler product does not hold for all z in C, your argument makes no sense

[Anonymous No.15518243]

>>15518198
obviously tikz

[Cult of Passion No.15518246]

>>15518223
Seek effort but give none.
Dream big but never plan.
Live with purpose but never execute.

[Anonymous No.15518252]

I haven't seen much of tooker since he got infamous on tiktok, has he been up to anything?