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.

 

 

 

!

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

 

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 May 19, 20178 yr by sevensixtwo

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.

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.

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

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.

 

 

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.

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

 

Not unless you read the paper that explains it.

!

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).

 

On 5/19/2017 at 1:12 PM, sevensixtwo said:

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

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

The people who are capable of recognizing when a paper about the Riemann zeta function does not even define the Riemann zeta function properly, and otherwise consists purely of word salad anyway, might however be active in the forum.

On 5/19/2017 at 2:04 PM, Strange said:

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

To be  fair, a proof that an hypothesis is wrong might easily be just some arithmetic.

 

I very much doubt that this thread is going to do that.

The linked paper is...very bad.

 

The first thing I'd require correction for is the statement about why the Riemann zeta function is interesting. It's not interesting "because we can’t be sure if it is the correct analytical form of the continuation". It's interesting because of its properties.

Second, you never define "nontrivial zero". What are the trivial zeroes?

Third, your notation should use a backslash, not a forward slash, to denote "Remove these". The forward slash denotes "Take these things as equal".

Fourth, the domain of zeta includes points with theta = pi. Most famously, zeta(-1) = -1/12. 

Fifth, the extended complex plane is (as you say) equivalent to the sphere (though I have no idea what you mean by "up to a complex phase factor"), so it is not the union of the sphere with "i".

Sixth, the Riemann sphere is not the extended complex plane minus a ray. 

I haven't left the first page and I've caught 6 things that each indicate some basic misunderstanding of the Riemann hypothesis. I rather heavily doubt you have disproven it.