Random Guy Ravi proves Riemann Hypothesis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2024
- Link: www.academia.e...
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.e...
#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.
on page 23 and 25 there are some pretty major mistakes: e^ix=cos(x)+isin(x) and not e^ix=r(cos(theta)+isin(theta)) and you take the false assumtion that re^ix=r(cos(x)+isin(x)) is of polar and not cartesian form, hence your derivative as well, as your differentials, which should be d/dr and d/dtheta (if your assumption about the polar form were right) are wrong. There is no conversions of angles in eulers identity, which is literally the whole idea of it. deriving re^ix=r(cos(x)+isin(x)) correctly would give you rie^ix=d/dx r(cos(x)+isin(x))=r(-sin(x)+icos(x)).
On page 25 you try to prove that ln(-1) is real, which is arbitrary due to how inverse functions are defined. If a function f:A->B, where A and B are sets and · -> · is the mapping opperator, then f^(-1):B->A is the inverse of f. The inverse of ln(x) is e^x, with e^x having an asymptote at y=0, approching from above. therefore the domain of e^x is at least IR and it is defined for all positive integers. hereby the domain of ln(x) is IR^+\0. Even though this only stands for all real values, -1 is real after all. you expanding -1 into the imaginary world is simply wrong.
Adding to this on page 24 you define the opperator of the vector cross product with an equals sign, which is just plain wrong. an opperator should be defined with dots in all the places, were you would expect some value or similar to be. therefore you would write · × · to define the vector cross product. × does not have a value and does not equal anything.
Now please dont quote me on any of this. im just a random 11th grade math student who is interested in the field. however it leads me to belive that you, making these fairly obvious mistakes (paired with the sub par language used, which should have improved immensly if you had read any english research papers), have not proven the riemann hypothesis in any way, shape or form. I appreciate your effort, but you shouldnt be trying to prove these kinds of problems on your current level of understanding. you know alot of mathematics (more than me), but you clearly dont completley understand it. and at least consider peer review or dont be angry if people point out your mistakes.
Dont take this as discouragement. imo you are meant to learn and create new things to understand our world, but learning includes accepting you were wrong and respecting the knowledge and inteligence of professionals. you wont reach far if you think, that you are a missunderstood genius or anything of the kind.
please keep learning and try to accpet, that you probably arent who you might think you are. grow and who knows, maybe one day youll actually proove the riemann hypothesis.
please excuse my langeuage and especially spelling. english isnt my first language.
To add,
11:37
line 4, Pythagoras formula on sine and cosine results in 1 for all value, not just for every 30 degrees
13:17
line 3, what does absolute real value of i mean? If it's the magnitude then it's just 1
line 5, where did 1/2.e^(ix)=1 suddenly come from?
@@mbrusyda9437 thanks. was just giving examples
@@diedenarios8688 yeah, just putting a comment to see his response
30 deg is special as in 4 quadrant system it cuts an 1/3 arc of 90 degree orthogonal but in a 2pi representation 60 degree do the same thing which basically is responsible for Zeta zeros.
@@rhsolved ... that's it? That's the only part you're responding?
Even that only moves the question from what's special about 30 degrees to what's so special about dividing into 3.
hoping ravi will appear and speak, to accept the nobel prize for debunking riemann.
But not any time soon.
I interpret this as a homage to collaboration. Not about the topic mentioned. The hard thing in mathematics is to invent something new. Almost always when someone thinks he/she/them invented something new, it has been done thousands of times.
So right.
This video is Terrence Howard levels of delusional gibberish.
No comments
No comments
Is this what caused the worldwide IT failures today?
@stuMas trolley that what your comment is About😢😂😅
No it doesn't cause failure but it may break the security algorithms
@@rhsolved May it really, though? Have you achieved that or is this pure delusional speculation?
I don't need to invent the wheels again, search google Shores algorithm you will get a piece of pycode, build the fastest computer you can, now start implementing what I said in my paper, you may modify the code wherever necessary, you will hack it. Don't come to me for help please. I don't need hacked money.
@@rhsolved LOL sure thing.
it is really funny to me that after "proving" the riemann hypothesis, instead of showing maybe one or two applications of it you start to "prove" basically all other milenium problems like the colatz conjectur. like did you search up "hardest problems in mathematics" and then annoyed chatgpt long enough for it to spit out this "proof" of those problems.
Those are not proofs just hint/leads
@@rhsolved theyre neither
How many times do you want to prove Riemann Hypothesis?
Voice is different, for other part of the world.
@@rhsolved Other parts of the world have different languages; why would the voice matter?
Actually, video hardly matters, just making the pdf accessible for peer-review should be enough.
@landsgevaer Then why people's are commenting so much.
@@rhsolved Because you are an easy target.
@@rhsolved I mean if you really had proven the RH, shouldn't you publish you proof in a widely recognized peer review journal or show it to the mathematicians instead of keep posting on RUclips?
Random guy Ian waves his hands and this proof magically disappears...
If you transition from complex numbers to real numbers, you lose half of the information, with no gain. Holding this as an aim for the entirety of complex numbers is the same as preferring that problems do not get solved.
If you are happy getting puzzled with non ordered field then okay, I am not saying leave complex numbers use it as your visual tool but for computation you get down to reals and see the computational power increase by 128 orders of magnitude
@@rhsolved I don't have the knowledge to understand that. I am happy with my assumption that if you have not been awarded a millennium prize, then you have neither proved nor disproved the Riemann hypothesis.
@@rhsolved Did you just pull that 128 of your, ahem, wrong end?
For security reasons, I don't want to highlight it, to a non believer of me like you I safely can.
@@rhsolved Oh, right, yeah... security reasons... of course. What a delusion!
Bros best friends with John Gabriel 💀💀
Who is John Gabriel
@@rhsolvedCreator of "new calculus" likely a crackpot
sir, are you associated with any institute or are you an independent researcher?
what are your qualifications?
Independent, no math degree.
@@rhsolved we know
@@rhsolved You need to consider why all the others who HAVE formally been trained in math aren't agreeing with you. You are missing a lot of education.
@@rhsolvedProphet from God. Humanity's Savior.
Math ragebait, damn what are these times 💀
I am not what you said
@@rhsolved My bad it was too harsh. Love that you're trying to prove the RH. That's more effort than I ever did. But at the same time, I still don't see why you are so adamant on not accepting the mistakes other comments are pointing out. That is not helping anyone and making people more critical of you.
@roy04 I believe criticism will stop some day once they break free themselves from the confined.
@@rhsolved there it is again. Maybe it'll happen once you break out of *your* confines of ignorance
I AM FREE!I AM FREE FROM CONFINEMENT NO WORRIES.
Did you also prove Navier-Stokes?
No but a lead is there
I love your dedication and sheer amount of content you are putting out there. Great job, and as always, I wish you the best of luck and success. I see a lot of interesting information here. Keep up the good work!
Also this voice is much better!
Thank you for your support.
Gamma(0) is not 1. You seem to have plugged in the wrong value for Z on page 16, as it shows the calculations for Gamma(1), which is indeed 1. All subsequent results you use become wrong because of this.
Unified Gamma 0 is 1.
On page 16 you are working with the Euler Gamma function which you defined on page 14
@Trulsbk in the lemmas the removal process of removable singularities of gamma and pi function been shown with introduction of helping function delta function and periodic conjugate/ inverse of gamma and delta function, then come to the alternate functional equation
@@rhsolved the singularity of the gamma function is not removable at 0. It is a first order pole, and thus you can not evaluate Gamma at 0. Besides, your calculation on page 16 is wrong. Calculate Gamma(0) using your definition on page 12 again and then come back to me.
@Trulsbk for that only I had to shift the argument
Same video, another voice?
Voice is different, for other part of the world.