October 6th, 2018, 12:01 PM  #81  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2014 From: USA Posts: 505 Thanks: 39 
I am trying to follow your post here. Quote:
$$x \in (0,\infty) \implies \exists y \in \mathbb{R} \text{ such that } y > x$$ Quote:
$$y > x \implies y \in \text{ 'the neighborhood of infinity'}$$ $$x = 1 \implies (1,\infty) = \text{ 'the neighborhood of infinity'}$$ Quote:
The real numbers are already defined. One can define a number in any fashion they see fit, but that doesn't make it a real number. Have you proven that $\infty  b \neq \infty$ and instead that $\infty  b \in \mathbb{R}$ or something? What am I missing...?  
January 11th, 2019, 07:16 PM  #82 
Senior Member Joined: Jul 2012 From: DFW Area Posts: 635 Thanks: 96 Math Focus: Electrical Engineering Applications  
January 12th, 2019, 10:18 AM  #83  
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2016 From: Arizona Posts: 198 Thanks: 36 Math Focus: I'm still deciding, but my recent focus has been olympiad problems and math journal problems.  Quote:  
January 12th, 2019, 12:19 PM  #84 
Banned Camp Joined: Jun 2010 Posts: 17 Thanks: 0 
It should be born in mind that this proof is irrelevant as )Mathematics/science end in contradiction an integer= a noninteger. When mathematics/science end in contradiction it is proven in logic that you can prove anything you want in mathematics ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem and you can disprove Fermat's last theorem http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...epossible.pdf 
January 12th, 2019, 02:06 PM  #85  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,259 Thanks: 686  Quote:
 
January 12th, 2019, 09:21 PM  #86 
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,472 Thanks: 2039  
January 13th, 2019, 09:39 AM  #87  
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 2,138 Thanks: 872 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  Quote:
Dan  
January 13th, 2019, 10:03 AM  #88  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2014 From: USA Posts: 505 Thanks: 39  Quote:
The same goes for any base, as base 10 is just one of the infinite number of bases we could use when representing real numbers. E.g., if $B$ is the base, then rationals that may be expressed as $\frac{n}{B^m}$ will have precisely two representations in base $B$. Every other real number will have only a single representation in base $B$. So now the question is, how does this ruin all of mathematics again? It seems like a very consistent and trivial thing to me. On the other hand, confusing notation with the notion of consistency to the point where "math is broken" is a ridiculously inconsistent position to take.  
January 13th, 2019, 10:06 AM  #89  
Senior Member Joined: May 2016 From: USA Posts: 1,310 Thanks: 551  Quote:
He has no clue that there is a difference between the symbol and the thing symbolized.  
January 13th, 2019, 04:02 PM  #90 
Senior Member Joined: May 2016 From: USA Posts: 1,310 Thanks: 551  Australia's leading erotic poet? There is such a thing? Is it an annual or lifetime award? Are the judges exclusively placental (I ask because I am not sure I trust the taste of monotremes in this area)? Can a prize be meaningful if logic does not exist. Many questions! More details are needed urgently.


Tags 
hypothesis, proof, riemann 
Search tags for this page 
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
riemann hypothesis proof?: zeta(s) is never 0 for Re(s)>1/2, flaws? thanks!  jlb  Number Theory  1  January 15th, 2015 12:49 PM 
A proof of Robin's inequality (and so of the Riemann Hypothesis)  Vincenzo Oliva  Number Theory  12  November 27th, 2014 03:14 PM 
Riemann Hypothesis.  mathbalarka  Number Theory  0  October 31st, 2013 12:54 AM 
Proof of Riemann Hypothesis?  eddybob123  Number Theory  18  May 21st, 2013 06:10 PM 
Proof for Riemann hypothesis and more  joexian  Number Theory  5  January 16th, 2013 06:13 AM 