sws5000

Dear Prof,

i sent one message for you yesterday ,, check please

regards

hello all

the Riemann hypothesis was fully proved by me , i dont know what i can do with the proof ,i wrote to many universities and research institutes ,but no body cares!!!

what can i do???please advice

i am not mathematician ,i am doctor electrical engineer , so nobody believes me!!!

i believe in my proof because i used mathematical logic and physics to proof it .

what i need is help from mathematician scientist , to review my proof and write it in a strong mathematical scientific paper .

who cares??

kind regards

WHO KNOWS THE NAME OF PRESTIGOUS MATHEMATICAL MAGAZINE ,WHERE CAN PURPLISH MY RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS PROOF

hi

Riemann hypothesis

who cares?????

urgent !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i am looking for mathematician , to work with him on RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS PROOF

I CLAIM THAT I HAVE A FULL PROOF FOR RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS

your answer is correct too

they are the same

because

1- let u=sin(x)

then integral= (1/2)*[sin(x)]^2

2- let u = cos (x)

then integral =-(1/2)*[cos(x)]^2

sum tow integrals =( 1/2)*{[sin(x)]^2-[cos(x)]^2}=-(1/2)*cos(2x)...... ( this for tow integrals ,but we have one integral then we must devide on 1/2)

and got finally =-(1/4)*[cos(2x)]

it means you and they are correct dont wory

i wrote in this way because i think you will understand what i wanted to say

if you dont understand i will write more clear

for you

your answer is correct too

they are the same

because

1- let u=sin(x)

then integral= (1/2)*[sin(x)]^2

 

2- let u = cos (x)

then integral =-(1/2)*[cos(x)]^2

sum tow integrals =( 1/2)*{[sin(x)]^2-[cos(x)]^2}=-(1/2)*cos(2x)...... ( this for tow integrals ,but we have one integral then we must devide on 1/2)

and got finally =-(1/4)*[cos(2x)]

it means you and they are correct dont wory

thank you

i am sorry for my lack in english language

you are right

It might help your cause if you learn to use LaTex

 

[math] e^{it}=\cos(t) + i\sin(t)[/math]

where i is the square root (NOT the root mean square) of -1

 

or more for this topic

 

[math] x^{it}=\cos(t\log(x)) + i\sin(t\log(x))[/math]

We always use in our daily lives complex numbers .. where the natural numbers are the same as complex numbers on the grounds that the imaginary part is equal to zero, so the division into two or more, is a moral division only, natural numbers is a part complex numbers, because the complex numbers shows the value (quantity) and direction while natural numbers show value only>

So in reality ,there is no natural numbers ,only complex numbers are there , we have canceled the direction and put imaginary part equal to zero in some cases because we don't need direction calculation or did not realize the direction of things so we cancel imaginary part .

so ,we divided the addition process into tow types : ordinary addition:where we add only values , and vector addition where we take into account the direction,but in fact there is one type vector addition, and if you don't need direction you can put imaginary part equal to zero.

And this view is helpful to analyze things and understand the world that surrounds us, how do we find the total intelligent for group of people that exist somewhere??What is the sum of awareness or perception of a group of people in a company or in the community??

I think the total awareness, intelligence or cognition is to vector addition , not ordinary addition.

we must use complex numbers in this evaluation process.

thanks

No, sorry, but I do not understand even what is for you very simple mathematics. Ridiculous I know, but there it is. I think on the whole I should keep quiet and let other people chat about this while I watch and try to keep up. Thanks for the address. I will email you at some time soon to see if our ideas about RH really do have some similarity. Mine are childlike, but I enjoy exploring them.

 

I suppose I could risk asking here about the meaning of the complex numbers in real life. Could you say more on this?

OK!!!

ANY HOW YOU WILL NOT LOOSE ANY THING

1-do you know any thing about complex numbers??

i want to define were i can start from

2-do you know for example this formula

exp(jt)=cos(t)+ jsin(t)

were j=root mean square of -1

3-o you know what is the meaning of complex numbers in real life??

if you know ,

We will try together to understand what Riemann series means in practical life and then expand our concept to include the beginning of the composition of the universe from the first moments of the big bang to the present day .. write this by simple mathematical equations , trying to explain based on mathematics what happened in the first moments after the Big Bang,How did the evolution of the universe to the present form then we can deduce how the universe will go in the future?

Then we will test the validity of the concepts and equations obtained by applying to some of the phenomena in the universe, such as the laws of gravity and the movement of the planets and the stars in the sky, motion of the electron around the nucleus, black holes in the sky, Doppler phenomenon ....etc>

Of course I tested both this and the results were wonderful, so I think that: this series is the equation of Divine interpret much of what happens in the universe of events and shed light on the early evolution of the universe and where is heading and how evolution explains many of the Ambiguous events in the universe for which there were quantitative relationships , but vague in meaning and concept.

Then we will analyze Mathematically, which depends on abstraction and logic step by step to prove or not prove the Riemann hypothesis.

Yes I assure you the full completion of proof of that all the non trivial zeros are located in Critical strap and be when the real part of the zero equal to half.

We can work together as a team to reach a fantastic and innovative result.

I assure you that I'm not crazy not imagining I have studied in the former Soviet Union and I I could find the solution to the most complex issues in the integration and differentiation in the university curriculum orally and quickly without writing.But in a country that did not believe in individual effort I did not get any value except full marks and a Ph.D. and I could not work there because there are no suitable salaries.

However, if my words wrong or I're crazy, then it will be the only loser is me because I spoke something is not useful and it is unthinkable level of Doctor in Electrical Engineering.

at the end

my e-mail: email removed

i will be happy to continue our discussion

regards

1346453886[/url]' post='700200']

Sws5000 - I am very enthusiastic, but I'm not going to say too much more here until the mathematicians have decided that you are not a crazy person. I'm too close to being thought one already to risk it.

 

I would love to hear your explanation of RH if it's as simple as you say it is. If not here maybe we could swap emails?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

my feeling , you understand RH in the best level ,you have a philosophy,i like it ,if you are interested , let we work on proof together.

i can explain RH for you , it is more than easy.

where are you from?

Yes, I agree ...MANY great scientists were not able to solve this problem, not because it is complex or difficult ... scientists often hold things and think in a way that makes things unsolvable ... but God created the universe much simpler .... When I was in the process of proof I sometimes got a long and difficult equations,

But MY deep faith THAT ( the universe is simple) , and that the right things must be simple TOO , made ​​me not convinced that these equations can lead to the solution.

So I canceled these equations and formulas immediately and I was seeking more simple way, in the end, I discovered that the matter is so simple to prove the hypothesis ,it didn't take me a lot of thinking, be sure please I am not pretending that I am one of the senior scientists .. I am not a specialist in mathematics originally .

the proof was done analytically and step by step at the highest possible mathematical logic and physical understanding.

after that i tried to get proof in different way and i got it ,so i have tow proofs

i would like to assure you that two different proofs led to the same result.

now ,i am looking to deal with any specialist mathematician or university in Europe or any were before writing in scientific paper.

are you mathematician??

regards

I ask because if you have prove the Riemann Hypothesis as you claim I would be very interested in at least hearing the details of your methods you use in the proof yourself. Also although I am not sure if there are any members on this forum who are researching analytic number theory there are quite a few members who are quite good mathematicians, and could more than likely work through your argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am sure there are individual mathematicians working towards proving the Riemann Hypothesis, however, I doubt there are many actively working directly on the problem, and I would be very surprised if there was a research group focused solely on the problem. The Riemann Hypothesis is a problem, which has been worked on for over 150 years now, and like many longstanding open problems many mathematicians avoid directly trying to tackle such problems -- especially before a well path to a solution is formed. Consider that Wiles only began working on Fermat's Last Theorem after not only had Frey laid a clear plan to prove it, but after epsilon conjecture was proven -- also after having secured tenure at a top research university.

 

See my previous post on how to increase your chances of getting your work read by professors.

 

As a final note, and please do not take this the wrong way, but the Riemann Hypothesis is a problem, which has vexed some of the greatest mathematicians of the last 150 years. Not only has it done this, but little as far as I know no one has even been able create a reasonable program for approaching a proof to the problem. With this in mind I find it somewhat hard to believe that the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis is as easy as you suggest; especially because you have done little to support your claim other than say you used a "natural physical process".

P.S.

DEAR DJBruce

I WOULD LOVE TO ASSURE YOU THAT BEFORE THE MIDDLE OF 20TH SENTURY IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROOF RH BECAUSE ONE VERY IMPORTANT THEORY WAS NOT BORN BEFORE.

and be sure please that the RH is not depends on the person mathematical level (scientest or not ) ,it is a way of thinking , it is a metodology how yo are looking to the things , at which angle you focus

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

P.S.

DEAR DJBruce

I WOULD LOVE TO ASSURE YOU THAT BEFORE THE MIDDLE OF 20TH SENTURY IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROOF RH BECAUSE ONE VERY IMPORTANT THEORY WAS NOT BORN BEFORE.

and be sure please that the RH is not depends on the person mathematical level (scientest or not ) ,it is a way of thinking , it is a metodology how yo are looking to the things , at which angle you focus

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

my feeling , you understand RH in the best level ,you have a philosophy,i like it ,if you are interested , let we work on proof together.

i can explain RH for you , it is more than easy.

where are you from?

Yes that would be exactly it, as far as I can understand the article. I might call it music but it's all physics. It doesn't seem to make a difference whether we are studying the mathematics of a quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator or a piano. The evolution of the number line would be a model of the evolution of the universe in a very non-trivial sense. Mathematics would be rigidly coupled to physics and to metaphysics also, and from there even to religion and mysticism. It's all about physical vibrations.

 

This is what G. S. Brown's famous 1967 book Laws of Form is all about, in which he quotes from the Tao Teh Ching and then neatly solves Russell's paradox. Russell prominently praises Brown's calculus on the cover, but he never saw it's implications for metaphysics. He never saw that the calculus does actually describe the laws of form.

 

This is why I get into trouble when I start trying to explain why I think I know (if I can put it like this) that there are infinitely many twin primes. It's just how the music goes. It even follows from what Lao Tsu says about the number line. I think. The RH is a very fuzzy object to me. I've tried for years to understand it and failed miserably. But I'm excited to meet someone who seems to be thinking about this problem in a similar way, as being possibly a much simpler problem in mechanics than it is in mathematics. I believe this is also true for the Twin Primes Conjecture. The problem is, how to convert these insights into mathematical proofs.

 

I do not dare not suggest a specific physical model since I don't understand the Zeta function or any physical system well enough. The details of these things defeat me. I'm not even sure that I'd risk saying that R's function or the behaviour of his zero's 'describes' a physical process. The numbers and the physical systems would obey the same natural laws, and the laws of number theory would be laws of Nature. But I really cannot make head nor tail of the non-trivial zeros of this incomprhensible function and it is very annoying.

 

Sws500 - I'd love to talk metaphysics but this is not the place.

i am so sorry i cant do that ,because my proof relies on understanding this process , i will describe it not here but in scientific paper may be

Yes, but what "natural physical process" does it describe? Is it something along the lines of this?

Question:

Is there any institution, university or research group concerned with proving Riemann hypothesis? I want to publish a scientific paper through the prestigious institution to get attention.

I wrote to the Clay Mathematics Institute and to many universities and institutes, but did not get any answer!!!may be nobody believes me.

They excused because I'm not known in the scientific community and i had no previous research in the field of mathematics or papers

Thank you in advance

you are very welcome

I'm probably the worst mathematician that has ever spent any time on this site. I'm a musician and so come at the primes from that angle. I also write about metaphysics, and this is why I'm not completely surprised by your talk of of cosmogenesis in this context.

 

 

 

 

I have the same suspicion, and I've heard others say it, but the difficulty of understanding the mathematics puts this particular problem well beyond my comprehension.

you are very welcome

 

 

let we disscuss metaphysics ,i like this subject too

Dear PETER

are you mathematician?

I'll almost certainly not be able to understand your work, but I'm extremely intrigued. I hope you'll be able to summarise it here sometime.

Dear PETER

are you mathematician?

Riemann hypothesis proof is not difficult at all, i am sure that ,the average intelligence school student can prove this hypothesis, the difficulty is in the idea and concept only, How to understand that what is the real meaning of these numbers sequential, what is the meaning under the real part of the nontrivial is equal to the 1/2, there is a divine meaning to these figures and this equation, Riemann series is the he first class equation of Divine,which gives an explanation for the first moments of the origins of the universe after the Big Bang>

it can explain the universe evaluation i guess not only prime numbers distribution.

I'll almost certainly not be able to understand your work, but I'm extremely intrigued. I hope you'll be able to summarise it here sometime.

In fact I love mathematics and physics,I studied in Russia Electrical Engineering, and know Russian language fluently, I want to be clear with you

, the problem what I have, is not how to write a scientific paper in English, I wrote a series of scientific articles successfully and participated in some global conferences.

I can summarize the problem as follows:

Riemann hypothesis not difficult for me, never, we can not prove Riemann hypothesis using the principles and laws of mathematics by using methods known Aboisth direct application the laws of mathematics

So I used the unusual way to prove the hypothesis, I mean by the (word unusual): that I did not see anything similar in any article or book of mathematics before, and used physics concepts, and want to assure you the Riemann Theorem express deep and wonderful phisiand wonderful physical meaning.

In fact I think I got a new and innovative way that I think it's useful to explain some of the physical phenomena which could lead to the solution of some matters and outstanding issues

Now I'm trying to correspond with universities here or in Europe, on all cases, I realized that I am not a specialist in mathematics or physics, so in order to be confident that the found results are true I want to work through research group or discuss the results with one of the big specialists.

Unfortunately here I couldn't find what I'm looking for so i come to this forum for advice.

yes you are right

but we will try to do the best

by physical nature i mean that the Riemann hypothesis describes natural physical process , if we could analyze and express it in mathematical formulas then the proof becomes very easy to do

From my talks with various math professors it seems that many of them -- if not most of them -- ignore most work sent to them on major open problems unless it is immediately clear that the author is aware of current work on this problem, and the work being presented clear states its methodology. So with that I would not expect to hear back from a professor soon, however, to improve your chances of a researcher actually taking the time to read your paper make sure you have a strong title, abstract, and introduction.

 

 

 

 

What are you suggesting is the physical nature of the Riemann zeta function?

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes you are right

three months ago ,i found one american university in DUBAI , i am still waiting for the process , it takes very long time

thank you

It seems quite plausible to me that a proof could come from electrical engineering, since to me it seems to be a wave-mechanical problem.

 

But I cannot for the life of me believe that anyone intelligent enough to have found a proof of any kind, or even to understand the problem in the first place, would post a request like this all in lower-case.

The Riemann hypothesis contain a great physical and philosophical concepts, and I guess it can not be proven without a deep understanding of the physical nature of the equation

I've tested the physical concept and geometrical meaning of Riemann equation. Then writing it in the form of mathematical equations, and after doing logical and sequential analysis i got desired result ,that the real part of all nontrivial zeroes equal half. But the problem is that the environment in which I work is not research ... I wrote to some universities in Europe, but I did not get an answer.

really now I will try to publish what i have done.

Thank you

thank you for your reply

it is in mathematical formulas and analysis

but the problem is that i didnt write any scientific paper in mathematics before

i used un ordinary technique to proof it

i am sure in my proof,because i got the results directly from certain formulas

now my problem how to write this proof

i wrote many papers in electrical science before

but in maths i afraid,

i need help fro mathematicans

be sure please in my words

I am not sure that I can understand how you can have an analytical proof (of anything) which isn't already in mathematical language. I cannot envisage even the possibility of a proof of Riemann Hypothesis which is not deeply mathematical in its nature

Hello everyone,

 

I had gone on the chat and I was referred and encouraged to put my question on this engineering section. I am having a very hard time finding sources to locate an electromagnetic engineer with very specific experience. I would appreciate it if anyone could guide me as to where I may find forums, societies, boards, school bulletins or school boards on this subject. Where do electromagnetic engineers hang and chat?

 

I am looking for someone that is just finishing with their Ph.D or Masters in Electrical/Electromagnetic Engineering. Preferably Ph.D. I am not seeking EE's concerning RF, antennas or microwaves. I am looking for someone that has the knowledge or the experience in working with permanent magnet generators and motors, induction, wound field machines and other electromagnetic devices. Engineer must have a thorough understanding of electromagnetic principles and analysis, in particular the magnetic structure and relationships of electrical machines. They would be working with magnet motors/generators from 8m in diameter to motors/generators over 700lbs for hybrid electric buses.

 

I have searched in so many places but most that I come across are in antennas and microwaves and things of that nature. They're willing to take prospect in and mentor and train to fulfill important position within company. Would eventually replace the chief engineer that is on their way out. This chief engineer would rather mold the right prospect from scratch if they had the choice. They would definitely consider prospects with experience already though. When i have in the rare occasion found someone with experience in the workforce...they are demanding extremely high compensation. I understand they have the right to, which makes me see this as more of an entry level or novice level. I only say that because of the compensation. It has a comp of $110k/year.

 

If anyone has any insight as to where I may find someone like this, I would greatly appreciate it if you could reach out to me. Thank you.

 

Jody

 

[]

hello

i am a PhD electrical engineer.

i will be happy tojoin with you

many thanks

my email: removed by mod

i am a PhD electrical engineer

regards

hello

i got full analytic proof of Riemann hypothesis,i would like to write it in mathematical language ,i am not a specialist in mathematics ,i am doctor in electrical engineering,i need a help to finilize my proof.

advice ...what to do??

regards

my email

removed by mod

The Riemann zeta function is a function of a complex variable that starts with

 

[math] \zeta (s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac {1}{n^s}[/math]

 

It is easy to see that this converges for [math] re(s)>1[/math]

 

From that point you need to understand more of complex analysis and the notion of analytic continuation. It is the analytic continuation of the zeta function that is needed for the Riemann hypothesis.

 

But to your basic question the input to this function is a complex number [math]s[/math] and the output is the complex number that is the value of the zeta function at that point. It is not something defined by any closed-form expression and that is one reason that the Riemann hypothesis is such a difficult problem (it is NOT the primary reason why it is difficult since mathematicians works with other functions lacking a closed form expression all the time).

 

To really get into the problem you would need to read something like Titschmarsh's book The Theory of the Riemann Zeta-Function.

The Riemann zeta function is a function of a complex variable that starts with

 

[math] \zeta (s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac {1}{n^s}[/math]

 

It is easy to see that this converges for [math] re(s)>1[/math]

 

From that point you need to understand more of complex analysis and the notion of analytic continuation. It is the analytic continuation of the zeta function that is needed for the Riemann hypothesis.

 

But to your basic question the input to this function is a complex number [math]s[/math] and the output is the complex number that is the value of the zeta function at that point. It is not something defined by any closed-form expression and that is one reason that the Riemann hypothesis is such a difficult problem (it is NOT the primary reason why it is difficult since mathematicians works with other functions lacking a closed form expression all the time).

 

To really get into the problem you would need to read something like Titschmarsh's book The Theory of the Riemann Zeta-Function.

HELLO DR

HELLO DR

hi

my name is sami

i am a doctor in technical science

my email : removed by mod

I thought for any new members that we have, it might be nice to introduce yourself. feel free to do so here