joigus

Is she any closer to proving RH? Maybe rogue is the way to go... You know... Just to keep on topic by the skin of our teeth.

In the UK, not necessarily.

I shudder to think what a nutter would do with a powerful theorem.

My struggle with grammar...

(My emphasis) Your audience? I'd rather you used, according to the Forum's rules.

I just want to add one thing. Sometimes imperfect proofs have the seeds of a really watertight proof in them, once necessary auxiliary investigations are made. As to the RH, there is a general feeling of pessimism, though:

Criticism by Luboš Motl that you may find interesting. He's highly suspicious that there may be flaws in the proof, although he certainly praises Kubalalika for their creativity: https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/10/some-fun-with-proof-of-riemann.html If I have understood correctly, for some auxiliary hypothesis to work, the RH itself must be true, so it's kind of a begging-the-question type of objection. We will have to wait and see some serious peer review by mathematicians.

Can you please point to the contradiction? As I can't see it.

Beautiful. Thank you.

You're most welcome. Physics is the realm of common-sense wonder. Welcome to the forums.

A simulation is worth a thousand words:

\[\left(183.5\pm.5\right)\textrm{ cm}\] May I also insist on what they've told you before?: Talk to her. Make her smile. Don't mention height. Be sincere. Forget about pick-up lines. Whatever it is that's good in you, make it shine.

(My emphasis.) Merely? How did Newton and Galileo manage to get anything done?

It must have been sheer luck. Let's say I was just talking from hearlore. But you've made noises in the innermost recesses of my linguistic and mathematical mind and awaken the creatures that live in the gallery of my mathematical and linguistic monsters. Maybe another thread is in order.

Well, you're right. Maybe not always. In continuum mechanics that may not be the case. In field theory it certainly is.

Ditto.

Field variables always can be seen to "inhabit" a space of their own. In the case of the electromagnetic field this internal dimension is the angle along a circle. You can picture the EM field as an entity that, for every point in space time, is given by an angle in this internal dimension. That's why Kaluza and Klein were able to model the EM field as a curly dimension (circle) superimposed on every space-time point. Yes, you're right. But that happens after the measurement has taken place.

I couldn't agree more. X-posted with Tristan L. OK. Thanks for drawing my attention to right English. I'm always eager to learn about language. But how many of those Anglish speakers are knowledgeable enough to have a meaningful conversation about second-order logic? See my point? I'm sure a compromise is possible. Mathematics has nothing to do with empire-building, does it?

Your point is well taken, @Tristan L, but I think the topic is difficult enough in and of itself that facilitating communication to as wider readership as possible overrides every other need. You can't speak a language that only you understand. I was totally thrown off by "ownship" and "witcraft".

Oh, yes. But all this would fall under the category of the description of particular scenarios. If you want to be very specific, that's where Ockham's razor is not in its proper domain of validity. Remember what @Eise said: (My emphasis.) "Heuristic" refers to scientific hypotheses, thereby to general patterns, rules, or laws. One thing is "this happens to be here and going in that direction"; quite a different thing is trying to put forward a pattern according to which things that are here or there, going in this or that direction, behave.

They are. There is no mention to any particular space-time coordinate frame, so how could they depend on any of them? What is more, they have an internal symmetry. You can rotate in the electric-magnetic reference frame \( \boldsymbol{E}\), \( \boldsymbol{B}\) and the equations remain the same, which amounts to arbitrarily re-define part of the purely electric \( j \) as magnetic. Yes, it is the divergence of a curvature term, and thereby identically zero by the Bianchi identity. Please, give me some time to read your other points.

I think it's about at what level you wish to describe the theory. It is well understood that, e.g., Maxwell's equations are very simply formulated in a coordinate-free way as, \[dF=0\] \[d*F=j\] But it takes a considerable amount of time to explain to students what all of these symbols mean. Then again, in particularly "dirty" situations, it does no good to tackle the problem in such an all-encompassing, highfalutin way. And we're approaching the level at which everything I say is just my two cents.

The waves that are used in Bell's gedanken are completely un-polarised. The key to Bell's scenario is that entangled pairs of particles are described with fewer variables than those needed to describe two independent particles, so the particles are sharing some internal physical reality, so to speak. The reason for the angle 45º is a bit technical: It's the angle at which a certain projection of spin for a 2-state spin differs the most from two states that are perpendicular in ordinary 3-space. Keep in mind perpendicularity --orthogonality-- in the internal space is different from perpendicularity in ordinary 3-space. I don't see anything terribly obvious in any of that. But maybe it's just me.

I wouldn't put too much stock on that. Mechanism? Male insecurity, that's what this is all about.

Economy hasn't got all the answers. OTOH, if you just let the lazy mouse die, there's no lesson to be learnt either. I'm missing a third mouse in the story. One that's capable of foreseeing. The diligent mouse will strive just as hard when Nature stops delivering her goods.