Riemann hypothesis

poo + loo = ???
I call this the pajeet conjecture. When I solve it I will get an MIT Phd for this and I have applied for 3 patents based on technology from this innovative breakthrough and I will be publishing soon. Also does anyone know how to use Latex?

I hope that I can provide the analytical foundation on which someone might develop an application in cryptography

Solve all of these first
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_Factoring_Challenge

The affinely extended real numbers is the real numbers with "infinity" and "negative infinity" added to the set, but you've introduced another infinity in proposition 1.8 ("the one with the hat on it") and decided to ignore some of the rules regarding those two numbers (like infinity + a = infinity). And then decided to redefine the extended real numbers with this new infinity in remark 1.9.
I don't understand this part. Is "hat infinity" less than infinity or is it the same number? What are the rules regarding this new set?

Attached: cocaine.png (559x318, 210.15K)

...

What to do when the trisector comes? Use bisections to approximate trisections to arbitrary precision of course.

* take the order space RR
* extend it to RR+ZZ*hat inf, so points can be referenced as (x,n)
* n.b. modding out ZZ will leave us with a space homeomorphic to a circle. Modding out ZZxZZ from this space ^2 leaves a space homeomorphic to a torus
* if x is in RR, then hat inf + x is in exactly the copy of RR that you expect. the notion of additively warping between copies of RR is RRetarded

So if OP disproved the riemann hypothesis then what encryption algorithms or schemes assume that the riemann hypothesis is false?

OP is a fairly intelligent man who hasn't studied topology yet

Taking it a step further, what would be the best way to generate prime numbers that can not as easily be guessed? Which is to say there is a finite point at which prime's used to generate RSA would be generated and have a riemann function exactly equal to the sum form of some z with Re(z) < 0 . Which would be the secret key = z? What does one do if someone has already computed all the finitely useful primes for RSA like bitcoin is attempting to do?

I am larping somewhat here and avoiding asking questions I don't understand. Even if that means the question I asked I barely understand.

Resources to try and understand OP
archive.fo/T7DoT
archive.fo/bOQQY
archive.fo/i2Obt

Would probably make more sense as
But I am not sure.

You see... to the people who look back on what happened later, it is you guys watching me masturbate that are the outrageous degenerates. I will kill all of you. If you saw that footage, then you are marked for death, and I will kill your children too so that there won't be anyone in the future who might feel bad about what I did to you.

There is only one infinity. Some other person pulled one set of operations out of their ass, and assigned them to this number "infinity." The number is determined by its magnitude, not its operations, and if you didn't know that then you don't know shit. Are you clear on that? The number exists independently of its operations. Please try to get this into to you retarded head. Whereas some other people have concocted a consistent set of operations for infinity, I have also concocted consistent a set of operations here. Then I said, "When infinity has a hat on it, then do the operations from my ass instead of the operations from the other guy's ass." Then I showed a thing that you can do with these operations.

I have no idea what you mean. Maybe if you write it in way that a sharp high-schooler can understand it, like the way I wrote my paper, then maybe I will see what point you're trying to make.

I actually just wrote a whole paper about topology
>vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

You should stop doxxing yourself. You really shouldn't ever post stuff like this and not take every precaution neccessary like assuming that some (((intelligence agency))) already knew all this and abused it.

math is boring. Reeeeeee

and actually, even in the pre-existing operations, there is nothing that says you have to do the absorptive operations as the first algebraic operation when absorption becomes possible. There is freedom to do the operations of infinity in any order you want, at any time you want, and the hat just tells you "Don't do the absorptive operations yet because it will destroy this fine structure id you do them now."
For instance with infinity hat you can write
(inf-hat - a) - (inf-hat - b) = (b-a)

but if you do the absorptive operation first then you get
(inf - a) - (inf - b) = inf - inf = "undefined"

That is the utility of the hat. It increases the number of things you can do. You can still everything in the normal set of operations, but you can also do new stuff that is non-trivial such as addition and subtraction of unequal numbers.

Attached: TIMESAND___np7) (() ___( )_____lnerz47z6xtkgasGGQRT()))ghttrhrhrxlsivi.png (564x344, 9.86K)

Doxxing is an involuntary thing. I am proud of my work and I like to have my name on it. I don't get too Machiavellian about things. I just do what seems right to me and leave the rest for the flying spaghetti monster to sort out. It would be easy for someone to abuse me; no one is going to abuse His Noodliness.

Yeah, posting on the "site with the muslim killer" is very smart. This is increasingly looking like a troll thread.

Go collect your 1mio.$ in prize money and then come here, otherwise fuck off

Just to ask the most basic but necessary question: what do you mean?
Let \infty represent that unique concept of infinity. How many natural numbers are there? Here I'm going to put words in your mouth and assume you agree that there are infinitely many of them.
Consider now the real numbers. Provably so, each natural number is a real number, so we know there are at least \infty real numbers. Again, provably so, there exist numbers in R not in N, so, actually there must be strictly greater than \infty elements in R. Call the amount \gamma. We know \gamma > \infty.
So, at this point, what becomes the reconcilliation of "there is only a single infinity"? OK, fine, let there be a single infinity, denote it \omega_{0}. Regardless, we know that there exists something greater than infinity, \gamma := \omega_{1}. Taking the colloquial concept of infinity just being "greater than every real number" \omega_{1} also satisfies that. So, it too is an "infinity".

Why do you care about what the SJW think? They mean nothing to me.

Money isn't for solving the problem. Money is only for finding someone who will publish your solution. I can only control one of those things.

I agree that countable and uncountable infinity are different, and that the latter is larger. What I meant was that there is only limit of the partial sums. I agree with you and concede that you have found an inaccurate element in my post.

If the FBI (or whatever) could do anything more to me than implanting electroshock rape devices in my anus, and placing piezoelectric finger-wriggling rape implants in my anus, then I am quite sure they would have done so by now. As it is, making an obnoxious sensation in my anus is their most powerful attack, one which will look farcical when I write my counterattack int history.

Attached: TIMESAND___dicugtcuyebnx82hd7tf26s)()()()()()()((.png (319x247, 3.91K)

Attached: TIMESAND___48gku64yfxxudl9l9o5p99p57p97pk4egg56ce24.png (837x542 36.32 KB, 30.4K)

Attached: TIMESAND___48gku64yfxxxXXXXXXrd66dl9l9o5p99p57p97pk4egg56ce24.png (904x424, 27.91K)

inf - inf is undefined because it can plausibly result in anything

mfw i'm going to get blamed when this kid pops off and shoots up his college because i curtly rejected his argument

Attached: eat-pant.jpg (680x487, 39.82K)

quick maths
check out my PhD

You can't touch infinity. Your defined interval $$[- \infty, + \infty]$$ simply doesn't exist. You can't just declare infinity is a number and not a concept, and arbitrarily large numbers will not fulfill your proof.

It can result in lots of things. You can show that it results in things which are contradictory, and for that reason we say it is undefined.

I'm not in college. My enemy might be telling the lie that he is my teacher in fashion, but I am not in any form of school, training, or education, formal or informal, nor or at any time in the past two years, and before that the extent of training was simple membership at a gym where I used to work out. I think some faggot has been saying that he is my life coach or something, and telling the other pieces of of shit in NXIVM that he is my slavemaster, but that's not true. There is not even one person on this whole planet whose position is superior to mine in anyway, every other person is inferior to me in every way, and is my inferior in every way, bar none.

This lie that this gangstalking nightmare I find myself in "faggot college" is a lie, and I will brutally destroy, with malice, everyone so stupid as to believe that I am in my enemy's training program. If you beleive that when he told you it, and you didn't ask me if it was true, then I will take away your share in the tree of life.

I'm not in faggot college, and I have no interest in learning how to be a faggot.

Attached: TIMESAND___hawfwf2r24r4fcfvrvvrtwfw221e787jjcgb73vbc).jpg (425x283, 32.53K)

This isn't my defined interval and I wasn't the one who came up with it. Anyhow, if it "doesn't exist" then what are the symbols I have highlighted in these images?

Attached: TIMESAND___npefgve5efrettbtbege)e (v()

Honestly, I think my enemy killed my friend that I used to do jiu jitsu with. Then he started impersonating my friend. Then he started telling people he was my friend. Then would I would talk about my friend they thought I was talking about the guy impersonating my friend.

Furthermore, when I paid to do jiu jitsu at alliance, that is all I was there for. I never had any interest in any of that gay shit, and I really started not to like training toward the time when I quit because it seemed like the class was more about how to pretend to be a faggot than to have good work out practice the system of leverages.

I think the guy started to tell people that because I worked out his gym, it meant he was my life coach or something, and that's not right. That's completely wrong. I felt like the man I started doing jiu jitsu with was my closest friend, but our entire relationship was on the mat. We went our separate ways at the edge of the tatame. I have never had any interest in the faggot ass fucking shit that I have found myself immersed in in recent years, and it seems to me that my inferior party in the grand scheme of things is telling the lie that he is making my life a living hell as part of some training course. That is completely wrong, and everyone who asked his opinion about but didn't ask my opinion about it will be put to death, brutally. I will destroy you. I am the Lord.

Attached: TIMESAND___King_of_Babylon 762.png (296x297, 204.99K)

If you can disprove the Riemann hypothesis, you can implement your own RSA algorithm.

He taught me to obtain the submission through the technical application of violence. Everywhere I had ever gone in my life before I went to Alliance, everyone seemed to think I was a fuck up and the evidence kind of supported that idea. At Alliance, the man was always telling me that I was doing good and giving me lots of encouragement. It's pretty much the only place I ever had that in my life. I am going to make him proud with the way I efficiently obtain the submission.

Attached: TIMESAND___)mxi8277)(@656H== ===YUGTttwgwvwczXXDRiu9)(()khhf.gif (720x404, 9.53M)

"infinity - a" doesn't exist in the extended real numbers, but it exists in your set.

could you then construct a homeomorphism between your set excluding the infinity and the real numbers? So it would include numbers like "infinity - a", which is in the real numbers according to your proposition. That or create a bijection between your extended real numbers and the one without absorption. I don't think your new set has the same topological structure as the one where you can't add anything to infinity.

Well since I don't even understand what RSA is other than that I read it has something to do with prime numbers, I disagree that ability to one translates into the ability to do the other.

(-inf,inf) is not a new set. This is the set of all real numbers.

Op, your definition 1.7 is flawed.

If the affinely extended reals contains [-infinity, infinity] then 1/infinity is in this set.
Let x=1/infinity. In this case, x × infinity equals 1 if the infinities are equivalent. Which brings another point--are your infinities equal? I'll leave it to you to research how infinities aren't all equal.

Before you mentioned to write it like a sharp high school student. It seems this is what you are since any decent calculus class would've dealt with infinity arithmetic.

Modulus arithmetic (and a few theorems) are all you need to know.

Then what is "infinity - a"? Could you construct a homeomorphism between the real numbers and the the set [- infinity hat, infinity hat] \ {- infinity hat, infinity hat}? So it includes numbers like "infinity - a".

How does that relate to definition 1.0? the affinely extended reals is not a field so division isn't guaranteed.

I take that back. I think it's equal to zero actually, but still arithmetic operations aren't guaranteed.
mathworld.wolfram.com/AffinelyExtendedRealNumbers.html
Basically x * infinity is only defined for numbers not equal to zero. That's again why it's not a field.

Yeah... just like the entire foundations of cryptography and then an advanced application or two. I have no interest because I have no encrypted files to decrypt. I don't doubt it would be pretty easy, I see that this is not a complex algorithm at all, but the question "how can I do it" was a rhetorical question meant to suggest that someone who is interested in such things might find my result very useful.

You are correct, my research is not research in the area of math pertaining to number fields. My research pertains to the more elementary area dealing with "numbers" and to some extend "operations." You can tell how irrelevant number fields are to pure analysis by the combined number of words Euler, Gauss, Cauchy, and Riemann ever wrote about number fields: zero words total between the four of them. Numbers are much more useful as the fundamental of object of analysis than number fields. Once you you start messing with number fields, you're severely truncating the freedom you have to do different kinds of analyses.

Regarding the homeomorphism you mention, that might be difficult to construct. Around the end of section 4 here
>vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
I develop some topological features of R which might prevent the thing you describe

Attached: TIMESAND___ fh37gxtr378787ejgt46787jjcgb73vbc).jpg (750x531, 89.08K)

The Riemann hypothesis uses the complex set--not the reals.

Attached: TIMESAND___npefgvege)e (v() ___( )___v__ltbtbtbtb.png (472x65, 6.54K)

A serious but unrelated nitpick: you should've definitely cited works regarding principles of the affinely attuned reals instead of attempting to define them. Second, if your research is based only from the original articles, it suggests you've not investigated any modern papers which heavily undermines your argument to publishers.

Is there other work that uses infinity hat like that in theorem 2.1?

Yes, that is right: I have not investigated any modern articles and I used Wikipedia for my source on everything. You are correct that publishers don't like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great website: it is better, many times over, than the articles I might have cited about what the extended real numbers are. It's all right there on the wiki, no paywall.

Publishers can suck my balls. If they want to go on record saying that my paper is unpublishable because I didn't cite papers which I never read, then so be it. I want them to conform to what I think is right, and if they insist on engaging me in a battle of wills then history will show whose will dominates whose will in the end. I think my will dominate theirs, even if that means I have to send their staffs to the death camps after I take over the government. They probably think that they can get the academic community to ignore me forever, I will never command any military forces, and I whither away in a gutter somewhere until they can admit what I did and give me posthumous praise.

Would my paper be better with more citations? That question is irrelevant. The relevant question is this: Is my paper so terrible that it is unpublishable? Anyone who says, "Yes, it is irredeemably terrible," better hope I never take over the government.

Attached: TIMESAND___Death.jpg (600x584, 60K)

Regardless, you definitely should've referenced the affined reals for the reader to see all the principles you didn't mention.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems

Attached: Ed.jpg (532x582, 38.56K)

Maybe. I've used it in a few papers. You'd have to talk to other authors if they tried something like that, I didn't see anything like it on Wikipedia. Here's three papers where I used it:

(1) Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
vixra.org/abs/1809.0234

(2) Real Numbers in the Neighborhood of Infinity
vixra.org/abs/1811.0222

(3) Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

If you're working with real or complex numbers, you're working with a field. Not to mention a field is just a set of numbers with some operations defined on it, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Well they all seemed to have died before the terminology was introduced (1871 according to wikipedia), but if they were working with rational, real or complex numbers they were working with fields. Also,
What is that? I know what real analysis and complex analysis is, but I'm not srue what that is.
Could you point me towards it?

Pro tip: cite Wikipedia's references, not Wikipedia. At risk their paraphrasing was incorrect of course

That's not how it works. someone has to write to them saying they think your solution is correct.

Incidentally, I think I've pretty much got Yang-Mills figured out too. Maybe one of you can polish it and get the $1M for that one. Around Figure 8 in this paper:

The Golden Ratio in the Modified Cosmological Model
vixra.org/abs/1807.0136
vixra.org/abs/1807.0136

That's actually how I got the three references I put in there. Usually though, it is considered OK to omit citations to stuff that is so old it appears in every undergraduate textbook.

Attached: TIMESAND___npefgwef24t3rgfhmulofyilge)e (v() ___( )___v__ltbtbtbtb.png (443x502, 48.05K)

nah, your statement is totally tarded. A field is a set with some operations that satisfy the field axioms™. If your set and operations don't satisfy the field axioms™, as the numbers in my research don't, then it's not a field.

I think you can google that adjective "pure" but if you can't that's fine with me.

The end of section 4 is right before the beginning of section 5. I have hyperref enabled, I bet you can find it.

here you go actually

Attached: TIMESAND___npefgwed3rgfhmulofyilge)e (v() ___( )___v__ltbtbtbtb.png (631x424, 24.32K)

Alright, I've took a look at your proof.
You extend the real/complex numbers with some symbol "∞ with a hat" , which you define, and then you show that zeta( "∞ with a hat" ) is 0.

But the Riemann Hypothesis doesn't care about numbers outside the usual ones, and that includes "∞ with a hat" . If you want to disprove the Riemann Hypothesis you need to figure out a complex number outside the strip without having "∞ with a hat" in the final result.

Look, it's easy to prove all sorts of shit if you can add new numbers whenever you feel like it:
Theorem: 3 isn't prime.
Proof: 3 = 2 * 1.5 , and neither 2 nor 1.5 are in the set {+1,-1,+3,-3} .

Attached: 94756869-decorative-rabbit-grey-and-sad-lies-in-profile-isolated-on-white-background-for-any-purpose[1].jpg (1300x867, 103.24K)

You're wrong, I never showed this.
You're stupid, and your reading comprehension is garbage if your not trolling.

that's a hot opinion you've got there. try supporting it.

But then you're not working with real or complex numbers, which is what reimanns hypothesis is working with. So what's the point?
The real and complex numbers are fields by definition.

Your second picture has the answer: this doesn't create a set with a field. You don't have closure because you have numbers that don't play properly with basic operations.

Which is why any math you do here is pointless because you can't apply it to a field.

Have you actually taken an abstract algebra course at any point?

Theorem 1.10: if x = (+ infinity with hat -b) and 0< b < n for some natural n, then x is in R.

Ok. So that means, applying for b = 1, that (+ infinity with hat -1) is in R.
What real number is (+ infinity with hat -1) ?

Also, again with your set.
You started with the real numbers, which is a field.
You then adjoined ∞ and -∞ to the set of real numbers, creating a set that isn't a field (which is fine).
But then you suppose you can subtract numbers from infinity, and will get numbers that belong to that set of numbers. The whole point of a field is that you have operations that take to elements of your set and give you elements of said set, with properties to make it nice. "∞ - a" you claim is a real number, but subtraction is only defined when both numbers are in the real numbers.
If it was a real number, you could then "∞ - 1" + 1 or "∞ - 1" + 2 would have to be in the real numbers, since you're adding two real numbers.

hot opinion you've got there. try supporting it.

This is wrong. Numbers and number fields have different names because they are different things. Numbers are not constrained to satisfy the field axioms, only elements of number fields are constrained to do so.

nor is closure required.

you all are quite fond of sharing your opinions. you should try supporting them. I have shown one particular point that I can make: RH is false.

this is like asking what number is the number seven. Numbers are defined by self identity, and you can also define them by their ordering relations:
6.9 < 7 < 7.1

wrong. I started with a number line which has nothing to do with field. Try reading the paper. Are you guys not aware that number fields didn't even get invented until many years after Riemann's hypothesis was recognized as a problem of interest?

irrelevant because I am not doing an analysis of number fields. My analysis pertains to numbers. Numbers and number have different names because they different. If number fields were numbers then they would call them numbers.

...

Attached: TIMESAND___npefgweedgq5yq457ulofyilge)e (v() ___( )___v__ltbtbtbtb.png (460x644, 37.02K)

You said it's a REAL number.
Every real number r has the porperty that there is some integer n such that n

>Every real number r has the property that there is some integer n such that n

Yes, and you're saying ∞ - 1 is part of the real numbers, which is a field. So if you add 1 or 2 to that number, which is also a real number, you should get a real number because they both belong to the field of real numbers.
Just because they weren't using a specific word for it doesn't mean it never existed. It'd be like saying the integers aren't a ring before the concept of a ring existed.
Well riemanns hypothesis pertains to the field of complex numbers, which is a field of numbers.
This is turning into semantic bullshit

Well since he's talking about real numbers, he's talking about the field of real numbers which has that property because it's a field.

This is wrong. You are wrong. The real numbers are the elements of the set
R = (-inf,inf)

If your stupid claim was true (it isn't), then that would mean that real numbers didn't exist until number fields got invented towards the end of the 19th century. To contrary, the definitions of reals number used by Euler, Gauss, Cauchy, Riemann, etc... had nothing to do with number fields because number fields didn't get invented until after most of them died.

This wrong. Riemann's hypothesis pertains to complex numbers where z is complex number if and only if
z = x + iy , x in (-inf,inf) , y in (-inf,inf)

Nah dude. Real numbers are the elements of the set
R = (-inf,inf)

B T F O
T
F
O

Actually it doesn't. The (field of) real numbers aren't algebraically closed. sqrt(-1) is not in the real numbers. Sorry I was referring to properties like "a + b is still in the real numbers" if both a and b are in the real numbers

The SET OF real numbers is
R = (-inf,inf)

it does.

The Archimedes property says there is no largest real number. I preserve this property in my analysis.

Attached: TIMESAND___npefgwr457ulofyilge)e (v()

Yes, a set of elements which are a field.
They were working with a set of numbers which had the properties of a field. Just because they didn't call it a field, doesn't make it not a field.

Calling it a set doesn't make it not a field.

You need to clearly define what the numbers are that we're working with, what operators are defined on it, and what properties they have. Otherwise this will go nowhere.

This is a MikeeUSA "You can rescind the GPL" tier thread.

A real number was nothing but a cut in the real number line for hundreds of years. If this definition was good enough for Euler, Gauss, Cauchy, Riemann, etc., then it is good enough for me too. Maybe certain other people find number fields useful for elementary analysis but I'm not one of them.

Im working with the real numbers
R = (-inf,inf)

It doesn't get much more clear than that. The real numbers are every number that is both
(1) less than infinity, and
(2) greater than minus infinity

Attached: TIMESAND___npefetjtuoypopppgwr457ulofyilge)e (v() ___( )___v__ltbtbtbtb.png (578x285, 26.98K)

If i have a real number, I can write an approximation of it down:
Look:
729.3214......
Then, by taking its integral part, I get
729

Attached: main-qimg-ec8beb4e1d08a5577610be6b37f14ca9.gif (814x200 19.3 KB, 4.12K)

what properties do they have? What operations are definied on it?

this is wrong

I answer most of those questions here:
Real Numbers in the Neighborhood of Infinity
vixra.org/abs/1811.0222

However, for the purposes of the paper that is the subject of this thread, I supposed some stuff in a proposition: Proposition 1.8. That is sufficient. This paper is a letter not a thesis.

epic

Attached: TRINITY___BRAINPOWER.png (1000x1402, 1.56M)

This is an average math crank thread, honestly. I was hoping to get some funny results by pointing him to a different vixra crank proving the opposite, but that has been underwhelming so far. I wonder how old OP is though. Usually, these people are well into their sixties, but that seems hard to believe.

I'm 39

But you know they're talking about killing people that are not Jews right? Are you a Jew or are you stupid to believe this shit? Or both?
Read The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene, you won't have to believe anymore.

I'm Jewish. Judaism is the religion of war.

OP is a schizo narcissist confirmed

inf has nhoods just like 0 has nhoods, they are [0,x] and [x,inf]. you define additional nhoods of inf like [inf hat - x, inf], so all the inf hat - x are included in nhoods [x,inf]. From the perspective of order theory this is fine

Yes, thank you and I hope blessings find you. I'm shocked by how this is not obvious to everyone. A lot people even dispute the existence of the neighborhood of infinity.

pix

Attached: TIMESAND___Golf Rumors.png (2329x2985 1.33 MB, 1.17M)

Math PhD here. OP's proof is bullshit.

post an argument, or tits, or gtfo

Which is the first enumerated item in my paper which you think is bullshit?

Infinity has neighborhoods, but the neighborhoods are of the form (inf, x), where x is a real number. They're all unbounded numbers. inf hat - x isn't a number in the real (or complex) numbers.
You can add an element of the form inf hat - x, and it might still have a consistent ordering, but you will no longer be working with real numbers, in which case you have to determine what are the properties for your new set of elements. Since it's no longer a field, you can't assume addition and multiplication return are closed within your set (you have to show it), and you can't assume properties like associative, commutative and distributive properties.

Attached: b2903ae59e98423237a09a7a40d550f0.png (703x554, 220.5K)