mersenneforum.org Riemann Hypothesis according to Bearnol
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2006-07-30, 12:11 #12 cyrix   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
 2006-07-30, 14:48 #13 bearnol     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
2006-07-30, 15:50   #14
mfgoode
Bronze Medalist

Jan 2004
Mumbai,India

1000000001002 Posts
RH Bearnol

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bearnol 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

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 idiot--full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

Regards,
Mally

 2006-07-30, 20:18 #15 jinydu     Dec 2003 Hopefully Near M48 110110111102 Posts To reiterate what previous users have said, how can you claim that: $\Large{\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n**s=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n**s.n**(2s-1)}$ ? And what on earth does ** mean anyway?
 2006-07-30, 20:23 #16 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 2,467 Posts In some programming languages, ** is the exponentiaton operator. I'd hardly call it "standard notation", though. Alex
2006-07-31, 16:47   #17
ewmayer
2ω=0

Sep 2002
República de California

2·33·5·43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cyrix 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?
Well, in James' (a.k.a. Bearnol's) defense, the greatest physicists and engineers in history also failed to discover a perpetual motion machine (some of the nattering negativists among them even claim to have proven that such is impossible - the glass is always half-empty with some people), but in fact also there James has cut through thousands of years of obfuscatory illogic masquerading as science in his usual Alexander-versus-the-Gordian-Knot fashion and in a few short strokes of his keyboard, given us just such a thing. In his limitless generosity, he's even made it available for all -- well, at least those with a quantafragalistic Casimir field convertor and a lossless room-temperature-superconducting zircon-encrusted dual Mo"bius strip (available at Ace's hardware and other fine home-improvement stores everywhere) -- via the Gnu General Public License. Apparently his invention has passed muster with the respected International Society for Measurement and Control (ISA), so I propose, in honor of his genius and selflessness, naming the resulting device the James Wanless ISA Crank. Do I hear a second?

2006-07-31, 17:54   #18
xilman
Bamboozled!

"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

22×3×883 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ewmayer Well, in James' (a.k.a. Bearnol's) defense, the greatest physicists and engineers in history also failed to discover a perpetual motion machine (some of the nattering negativists among them even claim to have proven that such is impossible - the glass is always half-empty with some people), but in fact also there James has cut through thousands of years of obfuscatory illogic masquerading as science in his usual Alexander-versus-the-Gordian-Knot fashion and in a few short strokes of his keyboard, given us just such a thing. In his limitless generosity, he's even made it available for all -- well, at least those with a quantafragalistic Casimir field convertor and a lossless room-temperature-superconducting zircon-encrusted dual Mo"bius strip (available at Ace's hardware and other fine home-improvement stores everywhere) -- via the Gnu General Public License. Apparently his invention has passed muster with the respected International Society for Measurement and Control (ISA), so I propose, in honor of his genius and selflessness, naming the resulting device the James Wanless ISA Crank. Do I hear a second?
Don't be too hard on him. Every village has had one from times immemorial and, in these networked times, every forum, newsgroup and mailing list has (at least) one too.

Paul

2006-07-31, 18:56   #19
ewmayer
2ω=0

Sep 2002
República de California

101101010110102 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman Don't be too hard on him. Every village has had one from times immemorial and, in these networked times, every forum, newsgroup and mailing list has (at least) one too. Paul
I wasn't being hard on him, I was attempting to sing his praises as best as these poor instruments called "words" will allow. I'm shocked that my missive could be misconstrued so, um, shockingly.

 2006-07-31, 23:31 #20 Fusion_power     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
2006-08-01, 14:08   #21
Patrick123

Jan 2006
JHB, South Africa

15710 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman (at least) one too. Paul
Whoops I see a new theorem coming along - ability to count with only half the numbers

Patrick

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post magox Math 12 2016-07-07 03:01 kurtulmehtap Math 17 2009-10-17 15:40 ewmayer Math 0 2009-10-09 16:50 Carl Fischbach Miscellaneous Math 62 2008-11-11 14:00 georgekh Miscellaneous Math 3 2004-12-02 18:45

All times are UTC. The time now is 18:14.

Sun Mar 7 18:14:42 UTC 2021 up 94 days, 14:26, 1 user, load averages: 1.43, 1.40, 1.45