Here is the paper: http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

Also testing if the "lol XD you so fahnny posting you schizo viXra maymays xD XD XD" people are active in this forum.

Started by sevensixtwo, May 19, 2017

9 replies to this topic

Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:12 AM

Here is the paper: http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

Also testing if the "lol XD you so fahnny posting you schizo viXra maymays xD XD XD" people are active in this forum.

Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:19 AM

!

**Moderator Note**

You need to post enough of the argument on this site (not just dump a link to vixra) for members to be able to participate without downloading papers or accessing third party sites.

Please do so or thread will be locked

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

- Alexander Pope

feel free to click the green arrow ---->

Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:48 AM

My argument is that infinity is not symmetric about the origin and the gradient in the yellow and green region of pic related implies that the the Riemann zeta function has eigenvalues whose real parts are not equal to one half.

**Edited by sevensixtwo, 19 May 2017 - 11:51 AM.**

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:57 PM

One of the main problems with proving riemann in either way is that modern computers do not reliably compute floating point numbers to any degree of accuracy. If you wanted to really prove it you have to do the calculations by hand.

Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:04 PM

One of the main problems with proving riemann in either way is that modern computers do not reliably compute floating point numbers to any degree of accuracy. If you wanted to really prove it you have to do the calculations by hand.

I would have expected a proof to be based on mathematics, not arithmetic.

Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:28 PM

Does the heavily coloured picture in post#3 come with any explanation?

Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:59 PM

I would have expected a proof to be based on mathematics, not arithmetic.

Lots of maths problems have been solved through arithmetic. It is important to note though that because we can solve it with a computer we can't verify that a solution is correct in either way on a computer.

Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:22 PM

Lots of maths problems have been solved through arithmetic. It is important to note though that because we can solve it with a computer we can't verify that a solution is correct in either way on a computer.

Then it isn't a proof.

Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:38 AM

Does the heavily coloured picture in post#3 come with any explanation?

Not unless you read the paper that explains it.

Posted 20 May 2017 - 11:13 AM

!

**Moderator Note**

**762**

OK - Last Chance. Either get with the programme and follow the rules or I lock the thread. I explained that members must be able to participate without leaving the site. You were asked a perfectly reasonable question - referring to an off-site download is not acceptable.

Do not respond to this moderation other than to either start posting details or acknowledging that you will not (in which case we can lock it and move on).

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

- Alexander Pope

feel free to click the green arrow ---->

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users