Jump to content
PeterJ

The Riemann Hypothesis

Recommended Posts

Dear PETER

 

 

are you mathematician?

 

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.

 

 

 

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...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are very welcome

 

biggrin.gif

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

 

biggrin.gif

 

let we disscuss metaphysics ,i like this subject too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 dorolleyes.gif

 

 

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 advancerolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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 advancerolleyes.gif

 

 

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

rolleyes.gif

 

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??

regardsrolleyes.gif

 

 

 

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">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK!!!

ANY HOW YOU WILL NOT LOOSE ANY THINGbiggrin.gif

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by hypervalent_iodine
Email removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by PeterJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

thanksrolleyes.gif

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2-do you know for example this formula

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

were j=root mean square of -1

 

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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]

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Prof, Expert in mathematics
I am Prof. Zeraoulia Elhadj from the university of Tébessa, Algeria. Please see this link
http://vixra.org/pdf/1210.0176v6.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1517v9.pdf
for a Solution of the Riemann Hypothesis: A positive answer to the Riemann hypothesis: A new result predicting the location of zeros.
I think that this is a fine solution. Please let me know about your opinion on it. I think that your opinion is the final decison to accept or reject this solution.
With kind regards.
Elhadj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Prof, Expert in mathematics

I am Prof. Zeraoulia Elhadj from the university of Tébessa, Algeria. Please see this link

http://vixra.org/pdf/1210.0176v6.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1517v9.pdf

for a Solution of the Riemann Hypothesis: A positive answer to the Riemann hypothesis: A new result predicting the location of zeros.

I think that this is a fine solution. Please let me know about your opinion on it. I think that your opinion is the final decison to accept or reject this solution.

With kind regards.

Elhadj

Good luck with that Zeroulia!

 

The proof that Riemann is true iff theta(s) does not equal 2kPi was beyond my grasp but I will have another bash. As a rank amateur I would ask - Are you sure that your one proof by contradiction that theta(s) does not equal 2kPi must apply to all values of s which are roots of eta(s) = 0 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.