Rieman hypothesis proof and my story in US voice
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2024
- Link: www.academia.edu/122384584/Nu...
riemann hypothesis
riemann zeta function
did you know
fermat's last theorem
imaginary numbers
riemann
complex numbers engineering mathematics
numerische integration
zeta function
analytic number theory
bernhard riemann
calculus and analytic geometry
collatz conjecture
complex analysis engineering mathematics
complex numbers
computational finance
critical value hypothesis testing
fast fourier transform
fermat's last theorem proof
formula de euler
functions of logistics management
hypothesis in research
indian mathematics
jacques vallee
mathematics
physics
plugged
prime numbers
real numbers and imaginary numbers
riemann hypothesis explained
riemann hypothesis proof
simplex
simplex method in operation research
testing of hypothesis engineering mathematics
theoretical framework in research Did you know
didyouknow
did you know
did you know channel
did you know daily
did you know it
#didyouknow #didyouknowfacts Link: www.academia.edu/114228221/NU...
#riemanhypothesis #riemannhypothesis #riemannhypothesisexplained #riemannhypothesissolved #riemannhypothesisproof #riemannhypothesisnumberphile #riemannhypothesisprimenumbers #riemannhypothesisveritasium #riemannhypothesisquora #riemannhypothesisinhindi #riemannhypothesislecture #riemannhypothesisterencetao #riemannhypothesissolution #riemannhypothesismathologer #riemannhypothesisproofattempts #riemannhypothesisanalyticcontinuation #riemanhypothesisand #riemannhypothesisandprimenumbers #riemannhypothesisandquantummechanics #riemannhypothesisandprimes #riemannhypothesisscienceandmyths #riemannzetafunctionandprimes #riemannhypothesisof1859
#zetazeros #zetafunctionzeros #riemannzetazeros #zetazero0.5 #zetazero0.5zillakami #zetazero0.5instrumental #zetazero0.5reaction #zetazeroslowed #zetazeroalphadisperatoamore #zetazerodarkbeach(slowed+reverb) #zetazeroorbital
#zetazerosand #zetazerosandprimenumbers
Dear Science Community,
I am pleased to present my proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. After 10 years of research and experimentation, I have successfully demonstrated that the Riemann Hypothesis is true. My proof is based on harmonic conjugate of zeta function and its functional equation.
The Riemann hypothesis has been proven in three different ways, each with varying levels of complexity. One approach involves utilizing the functional equation and introducing the concept of the Delta function and the periodic harmonic conjugate of the Gamma and Delta functions, similar to the Gamma and Pi functions. The other two proofs are derived using Euler's formula and elementary algebra. By analytically continuing the zeta function to an extended domain, the poles and zeros of zeta values are redefined. Furthermore, other prime conjectures such as the Goldbach conjecture and the Twin prime conjecture have been proven based on a new understanding of primes and numbers as three-dimensional entities, as elucidated by Hamilton's four-dimensional quaternions. The imaginary number iota is defined as the natural logarithm of two, and the logarithm of negative and complex numbers is redefined using an extended number system. Additionally, the factorial of negative and complex numbers is redefined through the use of the Delta function and the periodic harmonic conjugate of the Gamma and Delta functions.
The Riemann Hypothesis is one of the most important unsolved problems in mathematics. Its proof has eluded mathematicians for over a century. My proof not only solves this problem but also opens up new avenues of research in the field of mathematics.
The implications of my proof are far-reaching. It has the potential to revolutionize the way we think about prime numbers and their distribution in the number line. It could also have applications in other fields such as physics, computer science, and engineering.
I am sharing my proof with the science community in the hope that it will inspire others to build on my work and advance the field of mathematics. I am not seeking any monetary compensation for my work. My only goal is to contribute to the advancement of humankind.
Thank you for your attention. 
Наука
Flipped to a random lemma 6 and you have a negative factorial. This makes me think that, despite using the gamma function, you don't actually understand it, because the whole motivation for the gamma function is that factorial is undefined over the negative numbers. Also, you can't show that some pattern holds for finitely many numbers and then declare it holds for infinitely many numbers! You might want to learn how to do proof by induction before attempting to prove the RH.
Good to see that some one is trying to read my mind, I must admit that you are the first person came this far. Many more surprises are there, negative logarithm come under the scope of definition, the whole family of complex numbers get a real representation to play with in a practical way ready to be applied to AI / quantum computing and some ground breaking breakthrough in theorising dark matter, dark energy, age of the universe, numerical connection to physics fundamental constants, minimal proofs of prime and special number related patterns. Coming back to gamma, I have checked Zeta through induction, as they're intertwined I could draw the continuity. You can use this periodical harmonic gamma and delta as the original Gamma and Delta variants multiplicative inverse. How can it be a well defined function will not have a neither multiplicative nor additive inverse. Also you can see negative logarithm as a additive inverse fixing the caveat. Please download it from the link given in description.
I believe you Surajit, I will bring this up with my professors and let you know what they say. I will fight for you.
Thank you.
Inspired by a comment from @user-ur4bt4sb5b that points out the lack of references, let us see how much score this gets on the "Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong" list!
1. The authors don’t use TeX?
There is a disclaimer in my paper about potential threats to RSA encryption which is vulnerable to Shores algorithm as any orders of logarithm can be calculated in terms of real numbers alone. Quantum computers once hit the market they will crush it even faster. Don't know about SHA/Block chain technology, but it will not be safe. Professional hackers are smarter than us.
I can understand that you do not have a university background in some STEM field. But, it is surprising to see that you cannot apply high school level math.
Thanks God I can't, otherwise I would have missed such an elegance for which I am being constantly trialled/trolled.
I cannot tell you who the next Leonhard Euler, the next Évariste Galois, the next Srinivasa Ramanujan will be, but I can guarantee you that she will not struggle with high school math. These people were cutting edge at it.
Two last thing you should have a look in the Full version with the header called number rotates via Euler's identity and Pi as a base of complex logarithm which shall give you ditto copy of the Euler's formula but position of pi and e juxtaposed. I made up some special rotational numbers like e^22, e^33 (truncated) in terms of physics constant, height of my imagination in connecting the dots and the good thing is that you can check it in any physics calculator and the dimensionality check may be manually.
When it went at mn 3 on true geniouses are being mocked, I knew I was on for a good laugh. The mathematical community will forever be grateful to you on not imposing your name to Gamma(x-1). After 4 pages where almost all formulas provided were incorrect, I unfortunatelly got bored. I am happy that you have good Excel skills. I would suggest you to try Mathematica, not that it will help you on proving everyone esle but you really understands maths, but at least you'll get some evident formulas right.
Will you write me an app in Mathematica platform to test whether gamma function self recursively slip to the negative domain, how it's graph look like, it's zeros and the values I calculated manually fits or not, and of course what if we approach from the side of negative infinity, I mean it's periodic reflection. Math without intuitions and intention is waste of time, see we already wasted 150+ years without much progress. Let me know if you can make me the application. Good night, sleep tight.
Oh, you have read it it from the start? I wanted to see the proof. XD
What a pretentious person you are. I wish you good luck. Bye.
Believe me it's not my proud making me so, rather the labour pain in conceiving this ideas, if someone reject it upfront I don't mind, if someone try to make a joke or laugh then it hurts. Sorry if I sounded whatever you said.
To give a response to your notion of thinking outside of the box. Math is not a natural science. It does not matter what the real world is like. In math, there is an agreement on a set of axioms, including rules on how to deduce one statement from another. A proof of the Riemann hypothesis must be based on what mathematicians agree on. In particular, it is about complex numbers and their properties. But, that does not mean that one should not consider similar problems. If for instance, you do not like complex number, you can consider a different field of numbers. People already do that. You can, e.g., google stuff like "On the p-adic Riemann hypothesis for the zeta function of divisors".
I did my work inspired from real numbers, at the end if you buy it then complex, hyper complex, split complex, dual numbers all get merged with real numbers with appropriate higher dimensional scalar and a base of your choice for imaginary number iota( my natural suggestion is ln2). I saw the potential of applying it to exotic numbers like up arrow notations, tree3, etc but never ventured.
Which branch of the logarithm is this? If it was the principal branch, your iota would be nothing but yet another real number. Hence, you have to specify the branch that you are using.
Perhaps the branch cut problem ends with the selection of the base, of course we need to keep on using the successive logarithm of the main base we take for lateral ( for different families of complex numbers, verticals we need to leave open for future enthusiasts to explore other exotic numbers.). The periods will be directly handled by the imaginary parts I mean the real coefficient of imaginary part.
Oh boy, ten years of research and you still do not understand the problem properly. The series and infinite product representations that you use are only defined for real part greater one, but that is not where the zeros are located. For the rest of the complex plane analytic continuation is required. If you had miraculously found some new calculus that yields all roots for the analytic continuation, it must, in particular, give you the trivial roots of the zeta function and infinitely many roots on the critical line. But all you get is z = 0.5, which is not even a root.
You haven't yet got the insights of my work. RH is not a problem of complex analysis nor analytic continuation can bring the proof. Infact Riemann himself extracted most of the information in the form of his functional equation. Riemann hypothesis lies in the harmonic conjugate of Riemann Zeta function which is defined at 1, we are not supposed to see this conjugate separately rather we should see as an extension handcrafted by myself. I am not a calculas/complex analysis guy yet I tried my best to identify what shall be hack, if somebody validate this work with complex analysis then the prizes goes to him, I don't need a penny. Any other approaches with out considering the pole shall be waste of time. Already 150+ years gone.
I am sad as well. How can so many people, all loving math, hate each other? I did some research and used the most popular language.
पृष्ठ 22 एक आधे का जीटा शून्य के बराबर है। एक आधे पर ज़ेटा का व्युत्क्रम फलन सही ढंग से शून्य के बराबर होता है। टाइपसेटिंग समस्या?
Hahaha.
@@rhsolved यदि आप पालकी शर्मा के मित्र हैं, तो कृपया उन्हें मेरी ओर से नमस्ते कहें। एक वास्तविक प्रतिभाशाली और साथ ही सुंदर भी।
A functional equation like in 5.3, if used properly, should give you the trivial roots. That is why they are called trivial. But, well, the third line on page 43 is already a wrong. The zeta function is unbounded and that does not change if you multiply it by a polynomial to get rid of the pole. Apparently, you do not even understand what a constant function is. A constant function that has roots must be the zero function itself. It cannot have a non-zero value at z = 2. You should have realised at that point that your presumption is blandly wrong.
Multiplication was needed to transform the function and to probe what the function is doing at its pole and eventually find that the pole is actually landing the zeros on the critical line, I never tried give any bound to the function or turn it into a constant function.
Imagine, the very first formulas with the definition of zeta(s), visible at 4:40, are already wrong.
@@rhsolved ruclips.net/video/7FFyi-Vo1JE/видео.html This is the time stamp. It is on page 43. You try to apply Liouville's theorem.
@landsgevaer That's Euler product form. The introduction to Zeta function prior to Riemanns work.
@finleyallods That's post unification my dear, Just to check the consistency.
Okay, as you suggested, let us move to 5.3. That is a good idea since the formulas in 5.1 and 5.2 do not gives us zeros anyway, at least not by algebraic transformations. Let me jump to the end of your false proof. Why does showing that a function has zeros on - what you call - the "half unit circle" imply that their real parts are 0.5? Can you elaborate on this?
I made up 5.1 and 5.2 specially to give zeros for you. I will elaborate it let the Web version refresh it.
So, what about the end of 5.3? Why does showing that a function has zeros on - what you call - the "half unit circle" imply that their real parts are 0.5?
You might have seen at pi/3 angle (also its periodic equivalents) the modulus 1 split opens into dual. Enlarge the picture into a sphere (bcoz it is little higher than 2D complex plane) we shall get a shadow in the unit circle at 0.5 and at 2. This looks cloudy like electron clouds changing their position with energy levels but without crossing the space between them or maybe we can't catch them that fast just now but in future may be. Riemann built Riemann surfaces stitching the individual sheets where we had to take branch cuts to stop getting periodical duplicates. I have redrawn the Riemann sphere dividing into two hemispheres, point at infinity being shifted to real infinity. Northern hemispheres/ Southern hemispheres shall be different just like the differences between Arctic oceans and Antartica.
@@finleyallods I had to struggle a lot to complete 5.3, It was like finding the correct functional equation removing the pole/introspecting the pole, gamma could slide following its self-recursive nature, problem was moving zeta function even slightly, everybody knows harmonic series diverges, I managed to brought it down to unity considering the left sided limit, changing the limit of integration, reflection of gama function and many more intuitive steps which are not there in books/ for me wikipedia.
So, you had trouble finding the correct functional equation? I will leave to others to figure out whether it is incorrect or nothing but a slight deviation of the well-known ones. That part is too boring for me.
It is nonsens.
Nonsense.
hmmmm
Ok
It will be soon judged properly.
HUGE if true.
Let's hope so.
stop being delusional, people have read your work, it’s nonsense.
Only reading may not work, take an oath I won't get delusional as I will hold tight reality in my fight with infinity, I won't get delusional by copies of duality as I won't forget those are not reals. And accept the final reality that reality is relative and take an oath that we the mortals shall fight the infinity war till immortality.
@@rhsolved Bro's smoking that loud
Get rid of smokes, indulge in numbers you will feel the immediate kick.
WHEN PROOF TWIN PRIME CONJECTURE?? WHEN WILL U DROP ANOTHER BANGER?🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Soon
[ e^(ix) = e^(-ix) ? ] I haven't gone through whole of your proof, but just skimming through, I noticed that in Explanation 6, you prove generically that e^(ix) = e^(-ix), by considering that x^(a^b) = x^(b^a), which is absurd. I can indeed go through each and every line of the proof, and provide my comments !!
Please go ahead. On the Power trick, we can imagine a tower of Power 1 not much not less comfortably without changing the value of the given qty.
@@rhsolved e^(ix) = e^(-ix) cannot hold for every x, but only for x an integer multiple of pi. Forget any trick that you have applied, as that is mechanical math. Instead answer a simple question, if you think e^(ix) = e^(-ix). What is there in e^(ix) that it's always equal to its reciprocal ? How will one visualize this result in a general sense ?
Get motivated by ix=0=-ix, and e^0=1, we are on the unit circle we are finding something like dead end of exponential smoothness of e, unfortunately we get an unity which sits equally good with any finite number as well as infinity. How you interpret it's your choice.
@@rhsolved You just don't get it !! Either you are keen on wasting people's time here, or your math concepts are really off !! And then you have all this arrogance of not scientifically discussing anything - You think you are some genius, who will say something in the air, and people should then interpret in the right manner.
Your paper has even no references of the relevant literature. If you think you will pluck off something from the air like Ramanujan, then please read the book "Collected Papers of Srinivasa Ramanujan" by GH Hardy, where you will know how much literature he had read from the Mathematical Journals in the Madras library, and he had then built a general theme of his ideas to further those concepts, but his general theme was very novel.
Good Luck with your paper !!
I gave you my motivation, you got impatient with so little. Ramanujan was a born math genius and I am a trained accountant who know a zero should appear on screen when it tallies. The comparison you gave stand incomparable. Anyway THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.