20060730, 12:11  #12 
Jul 2003
Thuringia; Germany
2·29 Posts 
Hi bearnol!
Your "proof" provides nothing, and is also false. First: What do you show? If your "proof" would be correct, it would only show, that the zeors of the zeta function are lying symmetric to the line Re(s)=1/2. So there is no argument, that there weren´t zeros not lying on this line (it would then only postulating another zero on the other side of this line). And to the content: Your multiplication of the powerseries is not so obivius correct, for me (the equivalenz of the two terms you provided is not much not justified): Every addend is multiplied with another factor, so why should the two sums beeing equal? Where and how do you use the fact, that for every nontrivial zero of the zeta function 0<Re(s)<1? For a trivial zero , e.g. s= 2, your "proof" would imply, that a positiv real is also a solution of zeta(s)=0; here 1[2]=3; which is obiusly false. Do you really think, that you are such a good mathematician, that the greatest mathematicians in the past 100 years, including Hardy, Ramanujan, Hilbert and Erdös,..., all oversaw such a short proof, but you find it? Cyrix 
20060730, 14:48  #13 
Sep 2005
127 Posts 
Hi Cyrix,
Thanks for your interest. However I really don't see why you people are having so much of a problem with this! It's clear (I would even say crystal clear) to me! :)))))) Oh, well  I tried... thanks for taking a look at it, anyway, J 
20060730, 15:50  #14  
Bronze Medalist
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India
100000000100_{2} Posts 
RH Bearnol
Quote:
Please dont take it personally in the term used. I am merely quoting Shakespeare in Macbeth who forethought a situation such as this. "A tale told by an idiotfull of sound and fury, signifying nothing" Regards, Mally 

20060730, 20:18  #15 
Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48
11011011110_{2} Posts 
To reiterate what previous users have said, how can you claim that:
? And what on earth does ** mean anyway? 
20060730, 20:23  #16 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
2,467 Posts 
In some programming languages, ** is the exponentiaton operator. I'd hardly call it "standard notation", though.
Alex 
20060731, 16:47  #17  
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
2·3^{3}·5·43 Posts 
Quote:


20060731, 17:54  #18  
Bamboozled!
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across
2^{2}×3×883 Posts 
Quote:
Paul 

20060731, 18:56  #19  
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
10110101011010_{2} Posts 
Quote:


20060731, 23:31  #20 
Aug 2003
Snicker, AL
7×137 Posts 
If you compress a silicon crystal, it releases a small amount of electricity when it returns to its normal state. Just set up the plates for the casimir effect so that it compresses a crystal. Quantum fluctuations would cause variations in the pressure which would permit the crystal to convert the mechanical energy into electicity. Now we have a practical application for Bearnol's perpetual motion machine. All we need is someone to build it!
Fusion 
20060801, 14:08  #21  
Jan 2006
JHB, South Africa
157_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Patrick 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Hello, who could be able to endorse me so that I can publish on arxiv about Riemann Hypothesis?  magox  Math  12  20160707 03:01 
Connection to the Riemann's hypothesis  kurtulmehtap  Math  17  20091017 15:40 
The Riemann Hypothesis at 150  ewmayer  Math  0  20091009 16:50 
Riemann's hypothesis is incorrect a proof  Carl Fischbach  Miscellaneous Math  62  20081111 14:00 
Riemann Hypothesis is false?????  georgekh  Miscellaneous Math  3  20041202 18:45 