Видео

Are you my subscriber, I am thinking of monetise my channel, A huge target of 5K watch hours and 1K subscriber I have to meet by December,24 which I guess RH proof can't give. Therefore suggest me some content that may help me out. This series of did you know will be there for some days. Then I will move to something else.

@@rhsolved you should try attempting difficult math problems you find online

Please unsubscribe me.

​@@rhsolved I was never subscribed. RUclips recommended me this again 😂

Then you can ignore it.

Before you go, would you please let me know as a viewer how much attention you pay to the thumbnail of the video, I mean do you really care about the thumbnails.

Maybe because discrimination agains indian accent?

Keep listening to my AI channel, you will catch up one day. After all AI also invented by us. There is nothing wrong in taking help of AI technology.

Please subscribe my channel

As mathematics were always dual, they must coexist even with their different fan following, when time comes they don't hesitate to face off, but they never kill each other, because they are subject to the existence itself, in other words they help each other to coexist. That's why they are brothers.

@@rhsolved shut up

Cool bro, the number 1 is taken by some dumb mathematical rule, every other number gets unified into 1 through duality. You call me atheist, I won't mind, but the fact is everything is relative and dual.

@@rhsolved what does this have to do with the riemann hypothesis

Riemann Hypothesis is the theorem of duality.

Clifford algebra don't talk about any numerical evaluation of complex and hyper complex numbers(the real merger part).

@@rhsolved It absolutely does through the Weyl and Dirac representations... you are confused again.

May be, I don't know, what I know vector algebra war was won by Gibbs, Heaviside and being taught in regular curriculum, inspite of appealing promises of Clifford algebra. Did Clifford algebra gave any direct value for imaginary part, No. There I have taken a leap from the intuitions I got from my work on RH. Although I did not gone through intricacies of inter family dot and cross type products of various complex number forms such as hyper complex numbers, hyperbolic numbers, dual numbers, I have Just taken first step and invite others to give a thought. Before you start, you need to complete the cycles first otherwise it will appear self contradictory as you commented. You need not to follow my notations (I know it's not convincing), come up with your full proof paper and take the center stage of modern mathematics. My motto of directing atleast one person towards this jackpot of reals treasure before I die, will be served.

In an unified way, Yes.

Main idea is complex numbers is basically higher dimensional exponential representative of decimal system. To evaluate a complex number we need to see the sign of complex part, if it positive that means it's a positive exponent hence it will be multiplied with the real part, and vice a versa. For the imaginary part we have got successive natural log of 2 (natural base, you can come up with yours) and a decimal scale factor for the higher dimensions we are currently in. For purplex and dual number it same except the imaginary part which is slightly different. Please refer my paper.

@@rhsolved An example would be much appreciated but from what I know complex numbers are 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional numbers are impossible we can only have numbers like 4d numbers. and what does one exactly mean by 3d numbers?

In my next video (time I don't know) I will start with the merger of complex numbers with the decimal number system which I found to be consistent, then I will clarify on the intuitions which helped me to climb the peak, finally I will submit to you guys to do/fix it yourself (whatever criticism you have). Believe me I don't have any further update/hack/patches to elevate current mathematics to that level. If you guys can it's all yours I don't need any share.

Exactly, the author shows that they think f⁻¹(x), f(x)⁻¹, f(x⁻¹) and f(-x) are the same thing multiple times throughout this writing. A high school student would not even make such errors. I am worried for the accounting that is done by this person.

@@VenusianJungles I am a high school student lmao. Even Gen Z can't produce this level of delusion

@@Overlord176 Exactly, agreed.

Hope you guys are done. Kids, you guys have a long way to go chasing the illusions first to produce this kind of delusion. In accounts we are bounded by the entity we are keeping the books, you guys need not feel bounded, give wings to your imagination and make today's known boring science little more sensible and interesting.

@@rhsolved bro get off your LSD first

Don't forget to tell him: Not to judge my work from the perspective of conventional maths. Start with an open mind as we need to include lot's of axioms to our current mathematics before we could close it.

At 18:26 I have shown the induction of converging infinite sum of negative Zeta values. This is possible of course after Unification of all positive Zeta values to Zeta 1 which again arguably found to be 1.

@@rhsolved This result is wrong though. This means you haven't solved the Riemann zeta function, just the Surajit Ghosh zeta function.

In case you are wondering, you confused arcζ(x) with ζ(-x). This is very silly.

@@rhsolved This is not the accepted analytic continuation of the Riemann Zeta function

Sorry my dear, the part of my work appearing spiritual/mystic to you was actually hard earned through a process of reduction. You can use the word unconventional, that will sound better and it won't sabotage the value, my work may deserve.

It's too late may be, I am 45 now and every year I am ageing 2 years more as I consumed all my energies in RH. If you guys take me little seriously and start working further on my rediscoveries then perhaps all my work won't go astray.

@@rhsolved Losing one or two years income will not harm. Satisfaction is important.

Do you think I have time for jokes.

@@rhsolved yes

Then thank me for lightening your mood.

Most real.

Thank you.

Thank you 🙏

The universal entropy is always zero as Maxwell’s Demon has automated the process of adjusting the entropy at universal level and it does not increase which is not a violation of second law of thermodynamics.

@@rhsolved Sure bro.

@@rhsolved Maxwel''s demon is a thought experiment, not a theory.

There are two forms of Zeta function, one in the sum form of all integers raised to the power of s/-s and another one in product form of primes. Euler have shown us both to be equivalent.

I deserve little more than Terrence Howard (as I have given some solid equation alongwith my interpretation and I have not committed mistake like 1x1=2), but he is more influential than me, so for the sake of my work, I won't mind this nasty comparison if that negative comparison pushes my work little more. Ultimately I am also advocating some sort of cycles/loops in maths.

@@rhsolved most humble person i have ever seen

​@@rhsolvedBut your i= ln(2) is equally bad as 1*1=2

Some typos are there, please ignore that. If you look closely you will see that delta integral is different from the gamma integral, yet they both exhibit same kind of recursion relationship among themselves Which can be projected easily towards the negative domain.

I know, I am not an expert to unify this with all other mathematics. Here I just want to show that unification is possible. Now all others from different branches of mathematics should try to validate it further.

No

I did it in 2019-20. AI was not publicly accessible that time.

Prompts were purely mine and the story teller too.

I feel everybody who are seeking the truth should watch my videos, bcoz RH lead us to the ultimate truth. So far I am not violating RUclips policy I am allowed to do so.

@@rhsolved What is the ultimate truth then in your oppinon?

Ultimate truth is a zero. Every living or non-living thing which comes to existence has got an inbuilt death cycle over time except the time itself. Time being an non existing entity had no beginning nor it will end, so stop worrying about time, do your work, you will reach your destiny.

@@rhsolved There's the nonsense I was waiting for.

To talk about this nonsense I had to take a 360 degree round trip around all the higher dimensions and sensible guys like you love to get stucked at 2D. Please grow up flat landers.

Between 1 and 2 there are potentially infinite number of decimals, that doesn't mean 2 equals infinity. That minus sign silently telling us to consider the period/cycle and higher dimensions involved herein. Math as a language can't give us more explicit clue. We need to recognise it and decode the clues. Before I did this, I have done the same thing many times in my RH proof and the unit circle. All those manipulation sat well and fixed many maths limitations.

@@rhsolved man it's not silently telling you anything.... zeta(1) is a well known POLE with NO VALUE of the zeta function. it is TRVIALLY PROVABLE that the harmonic series has no solution. There is no explicit clue and it means nothing

If we look at the bottom of a lamp we will see dark shadows but those shadows are not permanent, move the lamp, shadows also moves along with it. Zeta poles aren't not absolute too. Move along my Zeta function continuam you will see, pole vanishes and it also proves/explains the RH too.

@@rhsolved you literally gave a false proof of why zeta(1) = 1 and now trying to justify it with random metaphors and you said " all those manipulation sat well and fixed many maths limitations " while basing it on a false proof of zeta(1) = 1. fix your proof

I will not debate here, as it is not a matter of debate, what I did was obvious to me(as obvious as we count 1,2, 3), but later I came to know there is no algebraic cycle in our algebra, that means algebra is a one way street. Now it's upto you, how you judge, you said it to be false, then I would like to congratulate you to live rest of your life with half-truths you know so far.

This is FTW, Fine tuned world 🌍

Pi to the power j times e equals minus one. Ramanujan like my pi formula.

Proofs do not require believing but knowing that mathematics is an incomplete subject from Godels incompleteness theorem we need to have little bit of belief before applying any new axiomatic patches to the current incomplete theorem to make it little more complete theorem as these axioms won't come in an unique manner. My patch to Riemann hypothesis may not appear as the only proof to you so you can carry on with out my proof for another 150 years or more but if you start believing today that this is the right patch then you get a promising future development in mathematics. So far rigor is concerned I give 7/10 to my work. rest 3 mark can be added by other collaborators.

@@rhsolved you know what godel's incompleteness theorem actually says right ? It doesn't says that math itself is incomplete, it just says that within a recursively axiomatizable formal system, consisting of a certain amount of arithmetic, there are well-formed formulas which won't have a "formal" proof, this doesn't means that statement doesn't has a rigorous proof at all.... there will certainly be stronger systems where you can find a formal proof...infact stronger systems can even prove consistency of weaker systems .... So, I don't get what you mean by - " ... mathematics is an incomplete subject from Godels incompleteness theorem .... " , and what about my first question? Can you give some sort of small explanation here in comments on what do you mean by the phrases - " duality of numbers " and " numbers are 3 dimensional ".....

Numbers are three dimensional means that we don't need to close our algebra under çomplex numbers, there are other Cozi number system like quaternion etc. are there to explore further. By Duality of numbers I mean to say that the whole infinitude of number line like thread can be folded into smaller DNA like spirals. Now this cyclic folding may appear like I am trying to converge a divergent series, but let me make it clear when both are possible even one very less chance (99.9999...9%+0.0000...1%) we should unify both into an unity and that is my duality.

I don't hesitate to say that mathematics will remain an incomplete subject for ever, you will always have to search for stronger statement to look weaker statement consistent. Who can know this better than me as I tried to show RH as a weaker statement with more stronger new math ahead of us.

I was also not a great scorer, so there is nothing wrong if you were weak in math. In short I have shown in 1-1=0 which is true but the problem is that -1 was not given in the question, I brought it from my hidden sleeves like a magician. It is appearing magical to them. Once they get my trick they will stop trolling me. You remember Newton's third law, every action has got a equal opposite reaction. I am trying to convince them how can you ignore this, now it's falling back upon me in the form of humiliation. Being the moderator I am keeping those post which are tolerable, which not crossing the limit, which are not getting personal, rest I deleted.

It would have been great if I could compete with AI. But I know I can't.

Including the singularity into the domain of zeta function through completion of algebraic cycles. To do that whatever manipulation you need all are fare in RH because our maths are very incomplete at this stage, including the caveat of negative logarithm, negative factorial, incompleteness of complex numbers, restrictions of 2 dimension and so on.

Thank you Sir.

Best of luck.

​@@rhsolved Thanks :)

Chatgpt can write the script, still a long way to go before we start getting mathematical proofs.

Ik what u tryna say @sidmilan it's not always chatgpt there are other language models too which are optimised for this purpose maybe he just used one of those and he the way this thing replies is just -_-

Ok

Already done. Search P vs NP in my paper you will find my opinion about it.

@@rhsolved What a charlatan

If you are lazy, it is worthless to say, read the paper from an unification and generalizations of zeta zeros approach otherwise you won't be able to step out.

@@rhsolved _"If you are lazy"_ - you're the one being extremely lazy. You have not even checked whether your derived θ = -12π and r=1/2 is a valid solution to the equation. It isn't.

It proves generalised RH from Euler's product form of Zeta function. I have rewritten the product form in exponential form, then the product to go zero, any factor has to go zero. Now side changing the 1 we can equate the rest part to famous Euler's equation e to the power iπ. As we are now strictly in the unit circle the infinite sum of r and theta part must be equal to 1 and pi respectively. There is no need for proving the convergence as Ramanujan has already done it for us, for r part it's regular geometric sum. Plugging the values we get the real part more precisely we get the general solution which shall be responsible for Zeta zeros and the final result comes to be as Riemann hypothesised. It's half. Hope I made it clear now. If not convinced Then you are still out of the unit circle, but I landed you on the point -1. Come to the unit circle first then think sum of the radius/ phases equal 1/π or not.

@@rhsolved You paste the same story under every comment. But what you should do instead, is to check whether your derivation is a solution the equation that you started with. It isn't. So your derivation is incorrect. You complain in the video that you did not have a chance to get feed-back from real mathematicians. Now you are getting feed-back, but you ignore all of it. It just shows that you are not serious about this.

So far I have got hardly 10 comments from person claiming to be mathematicians, rest are students trying to troll me out of their natural instincts. 7 out of 10 are against of it, 3 expressed positive opinion. According to human nature negative things come out easily than positive ones. So there must be another 3 who did not commented anything but started using it in their work. Still it's a defeat. This defeat is not mine. It's the fall of mathematics that the manipulation I used are not there in the books yet they are plausible. I have got my work verified from the astronomical observations, results of physical experiments and other natural signatures so I can't reverse my work. Time has to bring some insight to the marginal majority gone against my work. Don't take it other way, you have every right to say no, I have every right to defend. Let's agree to disagree with each other.

I actually finished 2 lightyears and 5 grams before you after retime. I apologize for saying it’s 2 weeks and spreading misinformation.

I am not in a race. You may be light years ahead, I am still at zero, constantly falling down, can you take me out.

@@rhsolved i recommend you to be lighter, since lighter object falls slower as the old wise man said.

Thank you for your suggestion. But in free fall a feather, and a hammer fall at same time. Anyway I figured it out, I just need to switch off my brain to come out of the zero.

@@rhsolved Well, that’s in theory. Because everything came with a cost. Free stuff doesn’t exist in real life. So does free fall. It is a flawed theory.

At the ground level I mean at zero I have shown how i equal to ln(2). Even though it doesn't sound interesting it's there in the nature in the form of dark energy. Now coming back to make it interesting, please go through the chapter unification of complex numbers. Here I exhausted my limit. Although I outlined the process, my brain could not just finish the grand design, I left it unfinished, an expert team need to run the simulation on a super computer and get the full meaning full picture.

​@@rhsolvedthat is like saying "I have proof that 0=1 I am just not gonna show you"

@@rhsolved show us how i=ln(2) When it clearly isn't

I don't know all the process, I submitted to some journal online as early as in 2019, then it was rejected. I lack presentation skills bcoz math is not my subject. I don't want to pay money to anybody to publish it. Every journal has got there own scope, own latex format etc. I am not wasting my time editing myself. I published this RUclips version so that math enthusiasts can start working on the implementation. If Perelman being the most deserving person could disclaim prize money then I find myself less deserving to claim any sort of prizes. I will be there some time to see what the world do with my work, then I will die. Perhaps my work will come handy post my death as neither the inventor of Boolean algebra, nor the inventor of quaternion knew that based on their work we will be communicating with the world with just a handheld device.

Thank you sir for your support.

Don't praise/mock me. I just flipped the coin to see the other side. Nothing smart about it, only out of curiosity I played with the idea, finally it worked out this way.

This is tricky but not false.

@@rhsolved there's no reason for θ + 2θ + 3θ + 4θ... = π and even less for r + r^2 + r^3 + r^4 .... = 1 for example r e^(i pi/4) + r e^(- i pi/4) = sqrt(2) r but this does not imply that r + r = sqrt(2) r

It proves generalised RH from Euler's product form of Zeta function. I have rewritten the product form in exponential form, then the product to go zero, any factor has to go zero. Now side changing the 1 we can equate the rest part to famous Euler's equation e to the power iπ. As we are now strictly in the unit circle the infinite sum of r and theta part must be equal to 1 and pi respectively. There is no need for proving the convergence as Ramanujan has already done it for us, for r part it's regular geometric sum. Plugging the values we get the real part more precisely we get the general solution which shall be responsible for Zeta zeros and the final result comes to be as Riemann hypothesised. It's half. Hope I made it clear now.

@@rhsolved "sum of r and theta part must be equal to 1 and pi respectively" Why "respectively"???? this is not true, the radius of the sum is not the sum of the radiuses ... and the theta of the sum is not the sum of the thetas ...

Then you are still out of the unit circle, but I landed you on the point -1. Come to the unit circle first then think sum of the radius/ phases equal 1/π or not.

This was unavoidable.

​@@rhsolvedexactly. This proves you are completely wrong.

​​@@rhsolved square root of -1 does not equal the natural logarithm of 2 sir Those are different numbers, which means that it still hasn't been proven yet

The recursive math involving interim cycles 360 degree around the unit circle, I have named cyclic math.

​@@rhsolved You mean that they are the values between the 360 degrees circle ?

No. It's dealing with every slices connected to the origin and the point at infinity. The arrangement can be a simple or twisted.

Thank you for your support.