Riemann's hypothesis is incorrect a proof

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

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.

While I agree with those statements, I would add that on occasions trying something can be good way of reducing ones ignorance, even if the attempt has been made successfully by others many times before. For instance, it is generally a good idea to attempt the exercises at the end of each section or chapter.

That said, doing exercises and asking a teacher for an appraisal is very different from announcing to the world that one has made a breakthrough in an arcane and difficult area.


Paul

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by xilman

While I agree with those statements, I would add that on occasions trying something can be good way of reducing ones ignorance, even if the attempt has been made successfully by others many times before. For instance, it is generally a good idea to attempt the exercises at the end of each section or chapter.

That said, doing exercises and asking a teacher for an appraisal is very different from announcing to the world that one has made a breakthrough in an arcane and difficult area.


Paul

Please explain to me how trying to prove R.H., when one does not even
understand a statement of the problem, nor understand even the definition
of the Zeta function itself, can reduce one's ignorance.....

Indeed, how can trying to solve any problem when one does understand
even the statement of the problem reduce one's ignorance?????

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Please explain to me how trying to prove R.H., when one does not even
understand a statement of the problem, nor understand even the definition
of the Zeta function itself, can reduce one's ignorance.....

Indeed, how can trying to solve any problem when one does understand
even the statement of the problem reduce one's ignorance?????

It doesn't, in the first case. Actually there are circumstances in which it might. You won't make any progress on RH itself but may gain facility in. say, algebraic manipulation and rediscover previously known material for oneself. I'm not saying that this is an efficient way of learning!

As for the second, my answer is: it may reduce ones ignorance elsewhere. If nothing else, it may well teach that ones previous understanding is woefully inadequate.

(A historical example: the alchemists tried very hard to convert lead into gold. They failed miserably, largely because they didn't understand even the principles of what we now call chemical elements, let alone nuclear structure. However, in making the attempts they learned a hell of a lot about chemistry.)

On quite a few occasions I've been thumbing through textbooks, research journals and web pages and realised that I don't have a clue about what's being discussed. Sometimes, I attempt to become at least slightly clueful and see whether I can find more introductory material. Others, I continue thumbing through or chasing references/links until I discover material which I didn't know or which makes previous discoveries better understood.

Random browsing and serendipitous discoveries has taught me a lot over the years.

Note nowhere in the above I do recommend the production of random scribblings about incomprehensible subjects. We're both very much in agreement on that matter. Neither do I recommend random browsing as the only, or even principle, research method.


Paul

[Xyzzy]

On quite a few occasions I've been thumbing through textbooks, research journals and web pages and realised that I don't have a clue about what's being discussed.

Welcome to our life.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by xilman

On quite a few occasions I've been thumbing through textbooks, research journals and web pages and realised that I don't have a clue about what's being discussed.

Paul

I've tried (and failed) a number of times to understand Grothendieck's
extension to the Riemann-Roch-Hirzebruch theorem.... I still don't
understand it.

I've sometimes kicked books across the room in frustration.....

However, when I don't have a clue, I don't go off and try to use
what I don't understand to prove something that I understand even less.

Part of wisdom is realizing what it is that you don't know, and at
least *trying* to do something about it. Too many of the posters
in the NG seem to be willfully ignorant. And I don't understand
that at all.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Part of wisdom is realizing what it is that you don't know, and at
least *trying* to do something about it. Too many of the posters
in the NG seem to be willfully ignorant. And I don't understand
that at all.

Amen!

Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Welcome to our life.

I've been clueless about most things all my life. As time goes by I become ever more clueless about ever more things.

Anyone who claims otherwise is lying or deluded (and clueless!).

How many people here, for example, can read Etruscan or know anything significant about how to make a whippletree with hand tools, or even what a whippletree is without looking it up?

Pal

[Xyzzy]

Hold that thought. We have to, um, go look something up…



Edit: Ah! You meant whiffletree! Why didn't you just say so?

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Edit: Ah! You meant whiffletree! Why didn't you just say so?

"The old grey mare ain't what she used to be."

[Jwb52z]

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".

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.

I would probably think it isn't a good idea to climb Mount Everest alone, but I stopped trying long ago to get people not to do things I don't like, except for being polite.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by xilman

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

What exactly is homeopathy to you then? I always thought of it as using "non-modern" medicinal methods with basic materials as people had to do before the 19th century.