Riemann's hypothesis is incorrect a proof

[Visu]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

What is it about mathematics that people who are totally ignorant
(and who know they are ignorant) think they can magically solve
problems that have eluded PhD's for centuries??? We see this phenomenon
constantly on the Internet.

Engineering - Perpetual Motion Machines

Chemistry - Making "fuel" from water

Physics - Cold fusion

Biology - Cryptozoology

Just some examples to show that this "phenomenon" is not restricted to mathematics.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Visu

Engineering - Perpetual Motion Machines

Chemistry - Making "fuel" from water

Physics - Cold fusion

Biology - Cryptozoology

Just some examples to show that this "phenomenon" is not restricted to mathematics.

Medicine - homeopathy.

Actually, even people who do (allegedly) know what they're doing in medicine sometimes come up with "magical" solutions. Consider the vast amount of money made from various smart antacid drugs for treating stomach ulcers. Most of those drugs most of the time are little better than expensive palliatives. Treating a helicobacter infection with regular antibiotics has now been shown to be much more effective.

Paul

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by Carl Fischbach

from Euler's formula e^ipi = -1

let 0 + i0 = 1/1^s +1/2^s + 1/3^s +1/4^s . . .

now you choose any term except 1/1^s and move it to the left side of
the equation I've choosen 1/2^s

-1/2^s = 1/1^s +1/3^s +1/4^s . . .

from Euler's formula you now have

e^ipi/2^s = 1/1^s +1/3^s +1/4^s. . .

This incorrectly assumes that the series form of zeta is convergent for all complex s, where in fact it is divergent at all points of interest to the RH.

Originally Posted by Carl Fischbach

0 +i0 = 1/2^s +e^ipi/2^s

multiplying both sides by 2^2s you get

0+ i0 = 2^s + 2^s*e^ipi

next

0 +i0 = 2^(a +iq)+2^(a+iq)*e^ipi

then

0 +i0 = 2^a*2^iq + 2^a*2^iq*e^ipi

Here you recover: the first assertion is true, and each of the following steps are correct. You now have 2^s - 2^s = 0 for s = a + qi.

Originally Posted by Carl Fischbach

let 2^q = e^pi

This means that you're considering s with complex part = 4.532...; an odd choice, but valid since you haven't otherwise specified the value of s.

It is worth mentioning that the first nontrivial zeta zero is at 1/2 + 14.134...i, so zeta(s) is not zero.

Originally Posted by Carl Fischbach

0 +i0 = 2^a*e^ipi + 2^a*e^ipi*e^ipi

This does not follow from your substitution, but it is correct.

Originally Posted by Carl Fischbach

0 + i0 = 2^a*-1 + 2^a*-1*-1

add i0 to both sides

0 +i0 = -2^a + 2^a +i0

therefore

0 +i0 = 0 +i0

Quite correct. You've shown that if s is any complex number with imaginary part i * Pi/log(2), it follows that 0 = 0.

Originally Posted by Carl Fischbach

Note (a) can be any real value not just 1/2 therefore Riemann's hypothesis is incorrect.

This does not follow in any way. You've demonstrated that 0 = 0, but you would need to demonstrate that zeta(a + bi) = 0 for some a ≠ 0, b ≠ 1/2.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

I am curious. You admit that you are unsure of yourself.
Why then would you even try something like this? Don't you
realize it makes you look foolish? I am sure that you are equally
ignorant about (say) neurosurgery. But you wouldn't presume to
suggest a new surgical technique would you?

What is it about mathematics that people who are totally ignorant
(and who know they are ignorant) think they can magically solve
problems that have eluded PhD's for centuries??? We see this phenomenon
constantly on the Internet.

I also suggest that you need to go back to school to learn how
to write cogent English. Not only is your mathematics bad, but so is
your spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure. Indeed, your
use of the phrase "complex math" doesn't even mean what you
clearly intended. "complex math" is not the same as "mathematics of
complex valued functions". Your public writing makes you appear to be a
total cretin. Do you like to appear foolish???

People are "foolish" when they don't know for sure if they can do something and try it anyway? Wow......that's just.........wow.... By that line of thinking, no one should try anything or bother having initiative unless they are geniuses.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Visu

Engineering - Perpetual Motion Machines

Chemistry - Making "fuel" from water

Physics - Cold fusion

Biology - Cryptozoology

Just some examples to show that this "phenomenon" is not restricted to mathematics.

I could have sworn that cold fusion had actually been done by now and that cryptozoology was real.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by xilman

Medicine - homeopathy.

Actually, even people who do (allegedly) know what they're doing in medicine sometimes come up with "magical" solutions. Consider the vast amount of money made from various smart antacid drugs for treating stomach ulcers. Most of those drugs most of the time are little better than expensive palliatives. Treating a helicobacter infection with regular antibiotics has now been shown to be much more effective.

Paul

Homeopathic medicine isn't always a crank. For example, if you don't have anything, drug-wise, to bring down a fever, all you have to do is swallow a spider web, which is usually done better with a bit of orange juice. It's an antipiruvic. As far as I know, there isn't a shortage of spider webs.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

People are "foolish" when they don't know for sure if they can do something and try it anyway? Wow......that's just.........wow.... By that line of thinking, no one should try anything or bother having initiative unless they are geniuses.

What would you say if I told you that, with no experience in montain climbing, I was telling you that tomorrow I will climb Mt Everest alone and with no help. At least something like "why not try something easier first".

If you read this thread from the beginning you are showing pure bad faith.

If you are just picking statements by R. D. Silverman to criticize them, you are doing exactly what you accuse him of.

You could at least do what you want him to do : just ignore some posts or posters.

Jacob

Judging by your following posts, you are developping an interesting case of cranckiness. Ingesting spider webs for instance has nothing to do with homeopathy.

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by S485122

What would you say if I told you that, with no experience in montain climbing, I was telling you that tomorrow I will climb Mt Everest alone and with no help. At least something like "why not try something easier first".

That would be dumb, because you'd die.
Math or any other thing where you're not in danger is a different story.
Terrible analogy.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

Math or any other thing where you're not in danger is a different story.
Terrible analogy.

I tried to use a totally subject in my analogy on purpose. If I had used an analogy that is more on topic like "I do not know anything about algebra but I have found an error in the (second) Noether theorem", the analogy would serve no purpose, it would just be restating the same arguments.

Jacob

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Homeopathic medicine isn't always a crank. For example, if you don't have anything, drug-wise, to bring down a fever, all you have to do is swallow a spider web, which is usually done better with a bit of orange juice. It's an antipiruvic. As far as I know, there isn't a shortage of spider webs.

True, there's no shortage of spider webs.

However, your claim is a non sequitur. Swallowing a spider web, with or without orange juice, has nothing to do with homeopathy.


Paul

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

People are "foolish" when they don't know for sure if they can do something and try it anyway? Wow......that's just.........wow.... By that line of thinking, no one should try anything or bother having initiative unless they are geniuses.

You are confusing knowledge and intelligence.
One need not be a genius to try something. One does need to
be informed. One should not be ignorant.