Riemann Hypothesis according to Bearnol - Page 2

cyrix · 2006-07-30, 12:11

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

bearnol · 2006-07-30, 14:48

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

mfgoode · 2006-07-30, 15:50

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

jinydu · 2006-07-30, 20:18

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?

akruppa · 2006-07-30, 20:23

In some programming languages, ** is the exponentiaton operator. I'd hardly call it "standard notation", though.

Alex

ewmayer · 2006-07-31, 16:47

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?

xilman · 2006-07-31, 17:54

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

ewmayer · 2006-07-31, 18:56

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.

Fusion_power · 2006-07-31, 23:31

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

Patrick123 · 2006-08-01, 14:08

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
Hello, who could be able to endorse me so that I can publish on arxiv about Riemann Hypothesis?	magox	Math	12	2016-07-07 03:01
Connection to the Riemann's hypothesis	kurtulmehtap	Math	17	2009-10-17 15:40
The Riemann Hypothesis at 150	ewmayer	Math	0	2009-10-09 16:50
Riemann's hypothesis is incorrect a proof	Carl Fischbach	Miscellaneous Math	62	2008-11-11 14:00
Riemann Hypothesis is false?????	georgekh	Miscellaneous Math	3	2004-12-02 18:45

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<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

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, 20:18	#15
jinydu Dec 2003 Hopefully Near M48 11011011110₂ Posts	To reiterate what previous users have said, how can you claim that: $\Large{\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}ns=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}ns.n(2s-1)}$ ? 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, 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