April 9th, 2017, 11:25 AM  #11 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2013 Posts: 1,101 Thanks: 40 
Conclusion : Better to keep my interesting readings for me. To @Mashke, The article is not finished and that is not my claim by the authors claim. The proof that you did not even read the article 
April 9th, 2017, 11:28 AM  #12  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,370 Thanks: 321  Quote:
You're the one who just admitted to knowingly posting a false claim in order to get people to read your posts. You can't fault me for calling that out. Better conclusion: Post what's actually known, not a misstatement for clicks. For example: "Interesting connection between physics and RH." Nobody will bust your chops for that. It's pretty clear that the physicists don't actually know any number theory. You're right, I got that from Woit and not from the original paper. When I first heard about that paper (prior to your post about it) I said to myself, "Bullpucky." And I didn't bother to read the paper. Last edited by Maschke; April 9th, 2017 at 11:38 AM.  
April 9th, 2017, 11:38 AM  #13 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2013 Posts: 1,101 Thanks: 40 
The next time I will keep any interesting article for me. By bye Have good day. 
April 14th, 2017, 01:17 AM  #14 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 951 Thanks: 23 
I think there are more seriuos attack to RH:  One is realize that Riemann build his function starting from the easy (always unwritten...) definition of a prime number: be: $z= n!/n^2$ the function told us (from 5 to infty) if a number is a prime, or not We can see that $z$ has the "same" behaviour of RH zeros: It gives integers (equal to trivial zeros) when $n$ is a NON prime, so Rest from the Subtraction: $z \lfloor {z}\rfloor =0$ Gives a Rational when $n$ is a prime. $z \lfloor {z}\rfloor >0$ So our rest here are the digits following (or not) the integers. Is clear it's ture by construction, or just because it's the most simple formula that fits for all the primes (except 2) and for all non primes (except 4). Rh function works in the same way taking just $(logx/x)$ as reference and we can prove by the transfinite inductions that we can couple one by one of my simple zeros / non zeros with one trivial / non trivial zeros. The only point is to prove we don't make mistakes in the computation of the next RH zeros and that we can correctly computate it as n+1. There already is a proof that is only based on the Induction on the RH zeros I've no time to check, but I'm quite sure (still if fully right in the computation of the next zero) has to be supported by this Set/ Ordinal Number concerning to vanish the doubt that the induction fail (or can fail). It will lead to more deep concept is well clear to engeneer, but not to mathematician:  If there is a variation on the medium behavior of an event, that there must be a variable that cause it. So it means that the number of freedom degree of a physical or a math problem imply the number of free behaviour. I found the same evidence on FLT and Beal, but I'm not able to say you more... As already written several times once we find the equation is true: \[ \sum_{x=1}^{\pi1}{(2X1)} + \sum_{X=\pi1+1}^{\pi2}{(2X1)} = \sum_{x=1}^{\pi2}{(2X1)} = (\pi2)^2 \] and we ask if modifing 2 parameters: \[ \sum_{x=1}^{A}{(2X1)} + \sum_{X=1}^{B}{(2X1)} =? \sum_{x=1}^{C}{(2X1)} \] 1) the Lower limit of the second sum from ${X=\pi1+1}$ to $1$ 2) the Upper limit of the second sum from ${\pi2}= C$ to $B=CK$ where K is an unknown free parameter, we can again have a solution... What we know is that moving the limits we are making a linear transformation of the problem: if one fells also the other has to fells too. Now looking into the general equation if the variation of the limits happen on a Sum of linear terms (has happen for n=2) we can find several "equilibrium" points since we move on two linear changing of the values: Limits vs Terms of the Sum and their parallell, while if the terms are NON linear, as happen to the general Term of the Sum for powers, that is $M_n (X^n(X1)^n)$ for n>2 We, maximum, will find just one equilibrium point for each variation of the limits since we loose proportionality, so we loose the linear scaling property. Last edited by complicatemodulus; April 14th, 2017 at 01:20 AM. 
April 14th, 2017, 01:52 AM  #15  
Senior Member Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,167 Thanks: 383 Math Focus: Yet to find out.  Quote:
Also, there is no need to falsely 'advertise' your post since most people who frequent the forum will likely read it anyway. Hell i don't know about everyone else here but i just sit around all day hitting the 'new posts' button...  

Tags 
hypothesis, physicists, proven, 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 
Help with Riemann's Hypothesis  robinlrandall  New Users  2  August 23rd, 2014 03:10 PM 
Is Riemanns hypothesis proven wrong?  Semjase  Number Theory  36  August 23rd, 2014 12:59 PM 
Riemann Hypothesis.  mathbalarka  Number Theory  0  October 31st, 2013 12:54 AM 
Do you believe the Riemann hypothesis?  Eureka  Number Theory  1  September 12th, 2011 01:07 PM 
The Riemann Hypothesis and what it say  MyNameIsVu  Complex Analysis  2  April 16th, 2009 07:51 AM 