/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm constantly reviewing the work looking for errors, and it always stinks if I do find one, but it's pointless to lie to yourself, same way I eventually knew I had a wrong explanation in the old part 5.
I haven't found one in the proof, but I did find one in an additional statement I threw in before giving it much thought.
The statement on page 11 about equations 66 and 67 describing the behavior of the real, complex, and odd sums being 0 is incorrect.
66 and 67 only describe the simultaneity of the system.
The behavior of those other specific portions is still governed directly from 13, 14, 16, and 18 instead.

>>10999469
heheh, Tooker proved that hyper-reals need more attention, as well as describing certain limits at infinity, but his RH dis-proof is timesand.
Here's page 7.

Hello, So I posted my attempted Riemann Hypothesis Proof earlier in January.
Overall, the concept was sound, and at least among the few people who have since reviewed it.
However, I eventually did ferret out an error, not in the overall approach, but in one of the sub-sections, the old section 5.
The claim in that section was correct, but my method for showing it contained a sign error and therefore was wrong.
This version fixes that by instead using a more rigorous and clear approach to that portion.
Not only that, but it also addressed multiple formatting, readability, explanatory, and quality of life improvements.
This version is much cleaner, more succinct, and down from 14 or 15 pages to 11.

>>10959217
I can't use nice formatting atm, but...

When does the special case equaling +-1 happen?
You went from dividing x/y which is R sub 0 over R hat, to saying R hat over R hat equals +-1. That seems wrong.
Sure all R sub ) have an inverse, you'd expect it to be in R hat, but then you do see and point out the contradiction, but one that you introduced, not that it was inherently there.
And even if you meant R0/Rhat then you are you also claiming that all members of R sub 0 are members of R hat and vice versa in order for to equal 1 at some point?
If so, then that claim simultaneously cancels out and creates your own contradiction.
That is, if the elements are the same then x=yz is still a member of R sub 0, so no issue.
Something is incorrect or unclear there.

>>10959128
I've looked through it before, I'll revisit if I get time, nice concise graphic.

>or again infinitesimal
really, I don't even think it right the more I consider it, would be a finite number, unless the divisor was infinity.

I likely won't respond too much though, have to do some other stuff today. Have fun with your fresh victims, bwahahaha.

>>10959113
>I have a plan for a "survey with applications" paper called "Reals, Extended Reals, Hyperreals,and Surreals in the Modified Cosmological Model" (or something) but I probably won't write it this year.

oooo, sounds yummy, would definitely read. Post it up next year if you do get to, I'm trying to consolidate some stuff too.
Also, I do think your work has merit/interest in the field, but specifically pertaining to Riemann it always seems like you're changing the goal posts compared to the context Riemann asked.
I know you've been all through that before with the Dedekin(spelling) cuts discussions, and I don't mean to specifically rehash that here, but again that's why I think it's more fitting to the topic of hyper reals or other related topics in general.
Still, it doesn't hurt to bounce each other's work off the other, it raises awareness of both, gets people thinking critically about the problem, and one of us right ;)

> It shouldn't say that and if it did then there would be a glaring error at that part of the paper.
How then are you claiming that the division of 2 finite numbers is 0? You say x is a real near 0, y is a real near infinity, and that their division is 0.
"Incomparibly large" doesn't make that happen. In fact, they are comparable.
Sure it will be another really small number, even another x, or again infinitesimal, but not 0.

>>10957837
Hey,Tooky Timesand. You're old friend Math Anon here again. I see you're still having fun with your claims that RH is false, but we both know that I proved it to be True.
I have to say though, the new cleaned up version of your paper looks much nicer.
However, should I go through it and point out some errors to people? I don't really have time for your sand at the moment, but maybe I should get them started?
Anyways, like I've said before, why don't you focus on redefining and expanding the field of limits and hyper-reals? It seems to fit your theories better and that you could expand the field.
Shucks, if I eventually get time, I'd even help.
Love, Math Anon.

Oh and p.s. to get people started.
Why do you introduce an asymmetry between (1) and (2) right from the start? Either line one should see b>0 also, and/or line 2 should see b>=0. So right there you're leaving a possible point open that could affect your outcome.

Line (3) says x/y = 0 but it should say approximately or approaches or maybe infinitesimal, but certainly not 0.

>>10591202
>RH is solved
I know, I solved it.
>Clay lists RH as unsolved
That's what they get for not hanging out in /sci. Silly Clay.

That Timesand guy is really something though. He thinks that there are infinite non trivial solutions, yet can't provide one example. What a joker, I tell ya. He just loves to get people to waste time arguing over fallacies.

>>10554437
I posted a proof of it 2-3 months ago. The thread was active for about 3 days. I'm sure you could find it in the archive if you're interested.

>>10331129
"The factor 1-2^1-s adds an infinite number of complex simple zeroes, located ..."

>>10331116
excluding the zeros of 1-2/2^s. those zeros are from the factor. when the denominator is zero the zeroes are coming from the pol of the Riemann function at s=1

>>10330803
According to this pic related information from wiki, those other zeroes are coming from the 1-2^(1-s) part of the functional relation for the analytic continuation between zeta and eta and not from the eta sum.

>>10330504
lol, that's the statement of the problem from wolfram, it's not an assumption, it's what has to be true, lol

>>10330613
I don't think the Author was doing that at any Universities lately, so I doubt it was the same person.

>>10330616
Nah yo, you've got it all wrong, I'm just some Math Anon who happened to find this proof laying around somewhere, and may or may not have an idea who it belongs to, hey, maybe it belonged to that guy on the uni. campus.

>>10330647
I think the author will eventually add more about that part to the paper. These for posts here explain the gist of it. >>10330356
>>10330381
>>10330423
>>10330461
In short, 70 doesn't have to hold to make the even sums zero, is the answer. They still have to be zero, but not from 70. They become zero from the product-ratio.

>>10330436
Roughly, yes, as a would go to infinity it would approach 0, but a is a real number, so there is no a that works.

It means there is no value of a that will make the sum and difference of the even sums both zero strictly by the coefficients C and S alone, and that those even sums become zero based on the ratio of the sine and cosine sums to C and S together.

This thread has already shown 2 spots that can be cleaned up, and in only a few posts, very nice.

1, Around equation 36, the logic as to why the sum difference test can keep being applied to large groups of sums, and showing an example of the 8 sums equation that leads to the 4 equations in eq.37 and the comment made in 38 would be helpful.

And 2, explaining the part around eq.69 about the C squared plus S squared equaling 0 coming from the product-ratio of the even sums.

>>10330301
>>10330356
Another quick way to say it, is that it's looking at the ratio of the sine and cosine sums, and it means that the real even and complex even sums aren't dependent on the coefficient to make them zero but are dependent on that ratio, and thus dependent on the sine and cosine sums.

>>10330301
thanks for commenting on the topic.

Yes, that's exactly right, and was what this poster was referring to here >>10330051

That "contradiction" isn't one, it comes from the products of the coefficients and sums in eq.39 and eq.40, and is there because it's comparing those products which much pass the sum difference requirement rather than just comparing 2 sums with no coefficients.

It's the portion at eq.70 starting with "clearly there is no solution for a that make eq.70 possible."

It seems that part could be made clearer, good to know.

>>10330051
The Landau proofs linked are about the values of s other than 1 that make the given functional relationship true. That's different than starting with the eta and saying that it's zeros must be on the critical strip within its domain of 0 to 1, as the equivalence is given.

There is a small difference though between the eta sum equivalence and the RH sum. For the RH the requirement is 0 <= a <= 1, for the eta, it's 0 < a < 1.

>>10330051
> stopped when they reached eq 70 and realized there was already a mistake made.

lol, you mean basically should have stopped at the end of the proof. That part wasn't an error found, and it wasn't just swept under the rug, it fits directly with the nature of the decomposed real even and complex even sums, and it looks like the author explains what you are referring to in the statement about wx plus or minus yz. What you are saying, is that maybe that part needs to be clearer, that's good to know.

> I'm not going to read through it all since the A's and B's with a dozen subscripts was giving me a headache.

what other labeling system would you suggest?

>>10329074
That's fairly accurate from what I've seen. Calculating primes and doing encryption is related, but different than, the Riemann hypothesis. If you can find primes quickly you can break encryptions based on primes faster. The RH was a question about the parameters and form of a certain sum. Since then, other questions have been put in terms of the RH. Solving it would simultaneously answer many other questions, but wouldn't necessarily equate to faster encryption algorithms, though it might. I think wiki has a list of RH equivalences on one of their pages, though I haven't looked in a bit.

>>10328995
That's the spirit, the author of the paper is a math enthusiast as you said, and does math as a hobby, and is usually just looking for conversation and discourse.
That poster is just going for the challenge posted here >>10328398 . Great oxymoron by the way, "standard complex analytic". Could you prove you couldn't prove it with standard complex analytic techniques without knowing enough about it to prove it in the first place?

>>10328916
I think the explanation to that is mostly page 7 where it says to apply the sum difference test to the left and right halves of the equations. Basically it's a consequence of applying the sum difference rule to larger chains of sums. It makes the statement about what you're asking about in equation 38. Maybe the author should show the work in that section. I think they left it out and just described it because it was a wide equation of 8 sums.

>>10328930
Yeah what is that? it seems to be the convention, I think because it was lower case eta that Dirichlet used.

>>10328840
Honest reply, thanks. I think that's what the author is attempting to do. I'm fairly certain they have a site they could post it to, but maybe getting a small separate site with that name or similar is a better idea.
I also think the author agrees that posting it online, on dated sites, is a way to establish history for the idea and help protect it from poachers.
I think they also are open to it having errors, but have reached the point where that is exactly why they need others to look at it, so that it can be scrutinized by peers. They would be a bit disappointed if huge errors were found, but would be more pleased that someone took time and found them, such that the proof could be altered or abandoned, as they practice radical acceptance.
And yes, if someone fixed it and built of it, I still think they value the credit of foundation as it would be clear where the idea came from.

>>10328775
Yeah, funny, right? I think I heard that the author threw that in at the end specifically because they hadn't written many proofs, and never had a chance to before, and you know, that's what people put at the end of fancy proofs, and so they thought it would be fun to just add it.