/sci/ - Science & Math

page 2

There are 3 versions of this paper, an original and 2 revisions, with this being the 2nd update and 3rd version overall. The paper was put into digital text format around September of 2019, and the first revision around April of 2021.
The original contains all core elements of the proof, but suffers from 2 issues.
The reasoning of why certain functions must equal 0 is clumsy, as I was using the logical connections I had made at the time, compared to subsequently realized ones with greater efficiency, and I was still understanding the deeper reasons to such. Secondly, the system of equations that arises in the later half of the
proof was not thoroughly explained, was redundant in some ways, and the key connections within it were explained using ratios that didn’t adequately shed light on the deeper logic of the system at the time.

You can post PDFs on /sci/ now. RH is false.

Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/2111.0072
>http://gg762.net/d0cs/papers/Fractional_Distance_v8-20230808.pdf
Recent analysis has uncovered a broad swath of rarely considered real numbers called real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity. Here we extend the catalog of the rudimentary analytical properties of all real numbers by defining a set of fractional distance functions on the real number line and studying their behavior. The main results of are (1) to prove with modest axioms that some real numbers are greater than any natural number, (2) to develop a technique for taking a limit at infinity via the ordinary Cauchy definition reliant on the classical epsilon-delta formalism, and (3) to demonstrate an infinite number of non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function in the neighborhood of infinity. We define numbers in the neighborhood of infinity as Cartesian products of Cauchy equivalence classes of rationals. We axiomatize the arithmetic of such numbers, prove all the operations are well-defined, and then make comparisons to the similar axioms of a complete ordered field. After developing the many underlying foundations, we present a basis for a topology.

page 4

>>15924691
oh nice, on the pdfs, had no idea.
here's the pdf then.

Extremely quick version lacking rigor lays out the general idea. This result was what all of this other BS in the news about "4chan tard solves sort problem" was referring to, and obfuscating maliciously. I uploaded this on Oct 1, 2018, but pic is from a revised draft with the date a few days later, c.f.:
>How an Anonymous 4chan Post Helped Solve a 25-Year-Old Math Puzzle
>https://www.wired.com/story/how-an-anonymous-4chan-post-helped-solve-a-25-year-old-math-puzzle/

Quick version shows that RH is false as a consequence of an unproven proposition. This lays out the idea with rigor, and the proposition is proven in the long paper with the highest level of rigor: >>15924691

>>15924699
>>15924700
Longer (but not too long) version proves the negation of RH with rigor, but not so much rigor that we start by reinventing the wheel, as we did in the long paper: >>15924691

I did the post the pdf here: >>15924696
Will still post the pages for convenience.

page 5:

>>15924699
The "4chan tard solves sort problem" was actually about a sorting problem, there were tons of articles and blogs on it.

page 6

Here was the original paper where the architecture of the solution was laid out a couple of years before the direct counterexample was discovered.

Ultra genius version.

Tooker
Tooke
Took
Too
To
T
Ta
Tak
Take
Take Y
Take Yo
Take You
Take Your
Take Your M
Take Your Me
Take Your Med
Take Your Meds
Take Your Meds S
Take Your Meds Sc
Take Your Meds Sch
Take Your Meds Schi
Take Your Meds Schiz
Take Your Meds Schizo

page 7

The proof uses the Dirichlet Eta function, breaks it into parts, shows the relationship between the parts, and then shows how those relations dictate the value of the real portion of the input.

page 8

page 9
This is where this version of the paper significantly changes versus the previous versions.

I read the OP paper a few years ago. I see the new introduction cites newer version, but I recall being disappointed to suddenly detect a big gap in the rigor around page 11 after following everything up until then. I don't recall exactly what the issue was (it was a gap in the rigor), but maybe if OP is the author he will comment on this.

You can also see that the John Titor logo comes Fig 11 here
>>15924708
and the figure on p11 here
>>15924702
because I am also the inventor of the time circuit, which was another nice result I achieved in 2018.

>>15924721
>This is where this version of the paper significantly changes versus the previous versions.
Maybe I will have a look at this then.

>>15924722
>the time circuit
>>15924722
>>15924727

https://ibb [doot] co/jZPTQBL
https://ibb [doot] co/v4czdbf
https://ibb [doot] co/NnXvgTf
https://ibb [doot] co/y0sXM6w
https://ibb [doot] co/8NDhwVZ
https://ibb [doot] co/PFtMZdT
https://ibb [doot] co/ggsZq8c
https://ibb [doot] co/809ksF8
https://ibb [doot] co/3rxCNZb
https://ibb [doot] co/xMhJ407
https://ibb [doot] co/kHh3Y9v
https://ibb [doot] co/Gs4DLWp
https://ibb [doot] co/b1bgggW
https://ibb [doot] co/Y7V9TYP
https://ibb [doot] co/mySzBWq
https://ibb [doot] co/H4PmYcG
https://ibb [doot] co/F4dx5jQ
https://ibb [doot] co/4mVRyyg
https://ibb [doot] co/MCkfML8
https://ibb [doot] co/m00wL04
https://ibb [doot] co/Kqyv7dQ
https://ibb [doot] co/yhkgzcw
https://ibb [doot] co/TYStvwj
https://ibb [doot] co/0hFfyxH
https://ibb [doot] co/nk2XYz8
https://ibb [doot] co/0KDZzcJ
https://ibb [doot] co/4NcgL69

>>15924685
I recognize this as one of the general categories of RH proof attempts, the "rearranging conditionally convergent sums" variation
I would suggest the author to understand this situation and, if the argument can still be salvaged, to address this concern as quite a bit of splitting a conditionally convergent sum into pieces is being done in this article

page 10

>>15924691
Long paper: JPG version:
https://ibb [doot] co/my3hhcR
https://ibb [doot] co/gSkNKmG
https://ibb [doot] co/YQjNF4L
https://ibb [doot] co/TLKdmZn
https://ibb [doot] co/LRqLQzq
https://ibb [doot] co/5MmrSSv
https://ibb [doot] co/Syb680p
https://ibb [doot] co/HP8h6BB
https://ibb [doot] co/rMMhMgp
https://ibb [doot] co/8dDDQwQ
https://ibb [doot] co/g9yKq9Y
https://ibb [doot] co/PYrs3Dt
https://ibb [doot] co/vLq14pt

>>15924722
Yes, I remember, you called that part diarrhea and were concerned with the convergence of certain sums.

pdf here - >>15924696

page 12

>>15924743
No, I wouldn't have cited anything about convergence.

13

page 14 - final

pdf - >>15924696