Dear Mathematicians, Riemann Hypothesis is proved, my story in US male voice
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 фев 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
![MURDER DRONES Series Finale [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p6mhC5Iatns/mqdefault.jpg)
bro thinks he is ramanujan
I think therefore I am.
@@rhsolvedThat does not mean what you think it means
I didn't mean I am Ramanujan, I defined ego saying " I think therefore I am ". It's our ego who stop us taking others seriously, to accept the changes quickly, think that we are just Stardust in the vast infinity.
@@rhsolved Bro you are stupid and i mean this.
idk, this man is some sorts of crazy scientists we see on the movies, he does math too much and turns into chaotic mode, the proof is full of flaws and the whole video makes literally no sense
Instead of telling me that my proofs are full of flaws learn to say that existing maths are incomplete bcoz we don't have these interesting maths in our books. If the concept of cycle make no sense, can you show us where there is no cycle, from the cosmic super structure, birth of solar system, carbon based life forms, evolution of humankind and the reversal of all these through cyclic changes, all were cyclic, and will be cyclic. You can't comprehend it because you are not so trained. We asians inculcate the cyclic concepts from the day one, we don't see difficulties in this chaotic math because above all other concepts we keep this zeroth principle on our top priority list.
There is a problem with your first proof of Riemann's hypothesis.
With your solution on 24:38 with r=1/2 and \theta=-12\pi, the leftside of the 1st equation goes to 1, not to -1.
That -1 is actually coming from famous Euler's formula e^iπ=-1. Because we are dealing with infinite products all the complex phase angle get added to give us pi and real distance/norms get added to 1.
I'm no expert but how is there not a contradiction in 5.1? If re^i\theta+(r^2) e^i(2\theta)+...=-1 implies that r+r^2+r^3+...=1 and \theta=-12pi, then e^i(k\theta)=1, thus the first equation implies that r+r^2+r^3+...=-1, , so 1=-1, a contradiction.
If k is integer then it will be -1 thus it will not mean 1 equal -1.
@@rhsolved You should really explain more because e^i(-12kpi)=(e^i(2pi))^-12k. Traditionally, e^i(2pi)=1, so (e^i(2pi))^-12k=1 for some integer k.
Here we are interested with the principal solution so I restricted to n=2 case, in higher dimension I presumed it should equally hold good, I was rather excited to extract the real value for imaginary number iota, I jumped to that and got it to be ln(2).
@@rhsolved Can you actually explain how this relates at all to the contradiction. So little in your response makes any sense that I feel like I'm being trolled.
@@rhsolved Nvm I read the other comments and saw your argument about tides lmao. Trolls are so weird, I seriously don't get the joke and why you would spend this much time for it.
There are websites where you can pay to publish research paper they have professional mathematicians who can check your work and see if it's correct or have problems. There are 100s to people who claim to prove this but you need your paper to be published
I am little orthodox, I am sharing my understanding, why I need to pay, what for the funding agencies are there? Where those funds are going? What actual value addition are being done by the journals? If I ask these questions then I will be tagged as a conspiracy theorist. I don't ask. If my work has got little bit of truth, it's light will come out. I don't need money so I don't hurry. Even if I die, I am confident that my work will force the future to sit upon my idea and start implementing it.
@@rhsolved Uncle calm down, random people on the internet can't read your maths papers, you need to contact a University and get it peer reviewed. Thats how knowledge creation work. Even the most successful people have to prove their authenticity of work anytime they do something,you are no different, no one knows you. I think you are a conman otherwise its a shame that you work will die without any recognition and it helps no one that you dont wanna share you papers with a peer group
I am not a conman, my work is connected to every other bits of mathematics, I can't take on all those challenges alone, I am not living in seventeenth eighteenth centuries either that if I said let there be light, there will be light. There are practical difficulties there. I don't have choice other than to leave it on time, I can't starve to death for my recognition.
@@rhsolved yes you do have a choice and there are no such practical difficulties. You are being delusional. You just need to reach out to a few people who can actually look at your work instead of arguing with strangers online
Although you didn't get my point, I got your point. My video title is not for strangers. I am communicating to budding mathematics lovers so that they can carry my work. Let me tell you Italian Mathemetician Sir Michel Atayah has been brutally mocked by the mathematical community in trying to connect the Riemann hypothesis to fine structure constant. I don't know what his methods were, yet I can say he was right in connecting Riemann hypothesis to fine structure constant. If Sir Michel Atayah received such kind of humiliation you can guess mine.
Has your research been reviewed yet?
I see records dating from 2019. I find it had to believe that 5 years later,
such ground breaking paper (assuming is true) hasn't been adopted.
Yes, one of my earliest work was published in a small journal from Dubai last year. Later I expanded it further, the shape it is now require havoc transformative changes in our maths, I know this will not get published ever as every journal has got a limited scope,interest. I am not trying it anymore. Just trying to save it for future through RUclips videos and preprint repository link. When the world gets ready for this, they will start applying it.
Bro is either delusional or a big time narcissist
@@rhsolved You are delusional.
Let this delusion come true.
@@rhsolved Thats not how it works mate. Time to grow up and stop wasting everyones time which means espcially yours.
I believe that there is a mistake unbecoming of a mathematician in 17:45 . Substituting an integration variable with a constant? How so? The goal of substitution is changing variables is to facilitate the computation of integrals by modifying the form of the variable and changing the differential such that it retains the same information. However, you did not only remove the variable completely; you also randomly changed the limits of integration without any reasoning. Not to mention that you tried to assign a value to zeta of 1 in the first place, which is still diverging using the definition you are using of the zeta function.
Before I changed the limit I have unified zeta function and it's functional equation, that unification process allows me to change the limit and assign the value found from various other methods in my final step for evaluation of the integral.
@@rhsolved All on this page full of trivial calculations is wrong. Not only is the substiution bogus you also "show" infinity = 1 without even realizing it. It worse enough that you dont seperate statement from proof in your so called "lemmata" and "proofs", but all of this is bullshit. You are less educated and skilled on math than an average first year student, but believe to have solved one of the hardest open problems in math with more than ELEMNTARY methods (which you dont even apply correctly at all)? Dude quit your narcissism and come to terms with that you live in a fantasy world since years. The only thing different between all the other cranks is that you use Latex. Congratulations on that.
@@rhsolved That's not how integration works, you can't magically get rid of your integration variable. The integral of x dx is always x^2/2, it can't suddenly be ln(2)x because you feel like it
We can do this in singularity situation like this.
@@rhsolved obviously not as you arrive at the contradiction 1 = infinity lmao
Sorry that I have to say this, but you are never gonna prove the Riemann Hypothesis. This “proof” is full of flaws and gibberish that it is almost funny. By the look of your paper you don’t have the slightest idea of what the RH is really about. But please keep learning new math, that’s good. Just don’t think you got anything close to a proof of the RH, cause you’re not.
I believe you, but here in this post I want to put it on record that whoever proves Riemann hypothesis in future , his/her work shall intersect mine, my signature predictions, that he/she has to complete an algebraic cycles. He/she has to go beyond the complex numbers atleast quaternion, once algebraic cycle is completed the notion of complex numbers doesn't make sense anymore, they should go for unification of complex numbers to simplex real numbers, so about the unification of zeta and factorial functions exploring the negative domain.
please seek mental help
You must be in 20-30 bucket, grow up man.
@@rhsolved You are the one needing to grow up - not the world.
I am mentally sound enough to judge your age from your words only.
@@rhsolved really? Cuz you got it wrong
Really! It must be marginally wrong.
Well as I can see in the comments, people found many mistakes but it is still a respectable work. It is a try to the Riemann hypothesis and every attempt count. Hope you're gonna look at your mistakes. You may not solve the problem but you can make progress in this way.
Actually those apparent mistakes are due to incompleteness of our existing math or due to lack of understanding of the person commenting. There are lots of typos, that actually shows my hard work. How far a single man can go.
Goodluck from a fellow indian,
I first caught a glimpse of this video whe it was in around 300 views. It is the first time an indian has claimed to prove thie hypothesis after Dr Eswaran in 2016.
Thank you for your encouragement.
I would recommend you connect with your peers or the mentor under whom you were working.
I am a self taught man, internet is my input knowledge base, my brain is my processor and the output is in your hand.
@@rhsolved Agreed but there is no harm in getting a review and validation from folks at IISc and IITs
Actually I don't know anyone, I went to Calcutta mathematical society/Chennai mathematical society one day, they ill behaved with me saying that " are you claiming to be Ramanujan" I don't even remember tables beyond 12, how can I claim to be Ramanujan. I am seeing everything from a view point that nobody wants to see and who cares if an accountant keep on saying your book are not tallied, we will continue to get funds selling the fear for darkness of dark matter and dark energy.
There is no relation between Charles law and fine structure constant since constant depends on pressures of atmosphere which in not universal thing atmospheric pressure of different planet will be different
There are number theoretic connection. If you divide Charles ratio by some non zero temperature even cooler than CMB you turn the constant a dimension less number like fine structure constant. Then to understand the connection between temperature/pressure i.e. spatial dimensional coupling constant and electro magnetic i.e. time dimensional coupling coupling constant we need to go cyclic. It's not that easy even to imagine.
@@rhsolved can you explain what do you mean by Charles constant
Charles law says that
Temperature is proportional to volume
T ~> V
T = KV
K is Charles constant it's value is
P/Nk where P is pressure N is number of molecules k is boltzman constant
It's the precise form now, prior to avogadro, boltzman, Charles, Gay-Lusac used to see that pressure remaining constant ideal gases would expand 1/273 portion by volume, later Lord Kelvin make the concept of absolute zero out of it. I am saying that 1/273 is connected to alpha 1/137 is through Riemann hypothesis.
@@rhsolved number that is choosed 273 is not special its number choice you can measure temperature in whatever scale you choose we defined temperature using deflection on thermometer there are 1000 different ways to define temperature we choose definition which was first used
Yes it is not special, we can take any base to our logarithm yet we prefer natural base e=2.71...because nature has chosen it. 273 = 100e + 2 is also natural that way. By the way are you accustomed to Fahrenheit scale, that's why you are taking so much time to grasp.
i appreciate the passion, but your proof doesnt prove anything its a long journey of circlejerking and shallow understanding of the hypothesis
From my side if you see I was right on the money, carving out and paving the path to Riemann hypothesis. Atleast I didn't waste much time in the slippery contradictions.
Could explain me? How to slove. Because, in Millennium prize not only one person do a mega project you know? 😅
Make a team, one from group theory and abstract algebra, one from topology and manifolds with differential geometry, one from complex analysis and one calculas geek, collaborate with the team, sit with my paper, make a group discussion, divide the tasks coming out of it, meet frequently to share the progress and discuss the obstacles, help each other to overcome the problem, one fine day you will reach your destination.
The comment section is a great source of entertainment for me 🥂
Enjoy.
If true this is groudbreaking
Groundbreaking. Yes it is truly groundbreaking.
6:52 what did you say ln(2) = i makes no senses
Just hit ln(ln(2)) in your calculator, you will get -.365 now that -1 is indicative for completion of a complex cycle. In our base 10 system, that -1 is equivalent of 10x10x10=1000. So next time you teach some kid that our Earth takes 365 days to complete a round trip around the sun, don't forget to teach them that same time moon rotates 12000 times along its own axis. Base 10 system was not accidental, hundreds of years of night sky observation led the Indian astronomy to discover it. I am bringing those complex cycles to real number line.
@@rhsolvedmoon is tidally locked with earth which means no of revolution is equal to no of rotation so it takes 13 rotation in a year I don't know what do you mean. there is nothing special about 365 its just a number you need to learn math and probability take medical help
Isn't it beautiful to see that ln(ln(2)) is telling us the same you said in mathematical way. -1 represent the tidal lock, and rest I explained.
what does 5.1 prove exactly? i must admit i dont understand equation 1. How does Re(s) = 1/2 follow from Re(p^(-s)) = 1/2? and dont you have to prove convergenz for theta?
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.
???? Is this a joke? How is this not on the news then
How many mathematical discovery has led to a news in recent times? There are topics like Russia Ukraine, Gaza Palestine for news.
it is your right to disbelieve , but if "not on the news" is your argument then you're a complete idiot.
Its not a joke. Its narcissist delusion/ fantasy land.
it should be on the news
Bro thinks he is him
Pi to the power j times e equals minus one. Ramanujan like my pi formula.
Nice joke
So you enjoyed it.