Reimann Hypothesis

Status
Not open for further replies.

nothing

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
46
Is anyone able to advise how one could check/prove/disprove this hypothesis, however without calculus?

For example, the first 45 seconds of this video:


He is speaking about the zeta function encoding information about the primes, containing all of them. If we suppose for a moment someone had the ability to see this encoding, what piece of information would prove/disprove the hypothesis? Is there a for-sure way to check?

Thank you for any help.
 
I suspect that you have it backwards.

The Riemann Hypothesis can be used to discover things about the primes, which are whole numbers. But the hypothesis is about complex numbers. The whole numbers are only a very small part of the complex numbers. What is true of the part (eg all mothers are women) is not necessarily true of the whole (eg not all women are mothers).

You may, however, be right in this sense. A truth about primes may provide a clue about proving the hypothesis, but I at least do not see how a truth about primes could itself prove anything about complex numbers. Nevertheless, I may be wrong. Perhaps proving the Goldbach Conjecture would be a building block in building a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, but it seems quite unlikely.
 
I see, so even if I figured out the whole numbers bit, I still have work cut out for me.

If I found the convergence of "infinity" and -1/12, along with the associated whole number radical, what might be my next step?
 
I see, so even if I figured out the whole numbers bit, I still have work cut out for me.

If I found the convergence of "infinity" and -1/12, along with the associated whole number radical, what might be my next step?
This is going to be my last response on this because I am not a mathematician and am out of my depth. Discovering proofs is hard is because each next step must be discovered. There is no sure-fire formula for discovering proofs.
 
There is never an easy way around proving something, especially in math.You are probably going to use calculus whether you like it or not.
Unfortunately, you have picked one of the harder things to prove. The Reimann Hypothesis is an enigma to most professors, so I don't know how anyone should be expecting to prove it without some impressive credentials.
 
There is never an easy way around proving something, especially in math.You are probably going to use calculus whether you like it or not.
Unfortunately, you have picked one of the harder things to prove. The Reimann Hypothesis is an enigma to most professors, so I don't know how anyone should be expecting to prove it without some impressive credentials.

I am closer: I now know what I have.

I have the real, whole number radical expression of the number 1, as it inversely relates to Φ³. This means that the 'identity' 1 is Φ³, just the numerator and denominator are inverted. This inversion occurs at the term ±c (the whole number radical is also a quadratic) thus when dividing this whole radical by 12, returns the expected 0.0838383... which is the real identity of the denominator of -1/12. Therefor, just the identity of the whole number rational alone may be enough to prove the hypothesis is obviously true if it can also show where the real number system begins/ends... which is the whole number radical of 1 and phi^3. Because the whole number radical quadratic contains both π and Φ, this is all that is needed to produce the entire number system because all numbers are contained in the identity itself, according to relationships to one another, thus are not real "numbers" but relative magnitudes. *Edit I suspect this has implications for the "imaginary" numbers as well, which I do not see as different from "real" ones.
 
Last edited:
OK. You are a troll. There is not a single word of that screed that makes sense.
 
OK. You are a troll. There is not a single word of that screed that makes sense.

Stop with the accusations - if something doesn't make sense, ask for clarification. Start from the beginning: which part does not make sense?
 
Start by defining "real, whole number radical expression" of 1. You use "the," which implies either that such expression is unique or that a unique such expression "inversely relates to phi cubed." In any case, you need to say what it means for 1 to be inversely related to phi cubed, and what phi is. So those are just the things that make no sense in the first sentence.
 
Start by defining "real, whole number radical expression" of 1. You use "the," which implies either that such expression is unique or that a unique such expression "inversely relates to phi cubed." In any case, you need to say what it means for 1 to be inversely related to phi cubed, and what phi is. So those are just the things that make no sense in the first sentence.

"The" "real, whole number radical expression of 1" is a "unique" whole number, expressed in radical form, which "uniquely" "inversely" relates to Φ³ .

Given (a + b ± c)/d:
-c = 1
+c = Φ³

Take these two solutions as s1 and s2 resp.
When the equation is in s1 form, it equals 1 (1.0000000...)
When the equation is in s2 form, it equals Φ³ (4.23606797...)

1/Φ³ and Φ³/1 are the same identity, just the ± is different.

How does this not make sense?
 
"The" "real, whole number radical expression of 1" is a "unique" whole number, expressed in radical form, which "uniquely" "inversely" relates to Φ³ .

Given (a + b ± c)/d:
-c = 1
+c = Φ³

Take these two solutions as s1 and s2 resp.
When the equation is in s1 form, it equals 1 (1.0000000...)
When the equation is in s2 form, it equals Φ³ (4.23606797...)

1/Φ³ and Φ³/1 are the same identity, just the ± is different.

How does this not make sense?
What is the equation? You have not given any equation.

Most radicals of whole numbers are not whole numbers. Please define exactly what a "whole number radical" is. If you cannot define it in mathematical vocabulary, please give two or three examples so we can at least try to figure out what you are getting at.

[MATH]\dfrac{1}{\phi^3} \text { is NOT identical to } \dfrac{\phi^3}{1} \text { UNLESS } \phi = 1.[/MATH]
[MATH]-\ c = 1 \text { is logically inconsistent with } c = \phi^3 \text { UNLESS } \phi = 1.[/MATH]
Thus it is IMPOSSIBLE that [MATH]\phi > 4.[/MATH]
No matter what its value, what is the relevance of [MATH]\phi?[/MATH]
So far, you have not provided any sensible explanation of even your very first sentence.
 
What is the equation? You have not given any equation.

It is not an equation, it is an identity.

Most radicals of whole numbers are not whole numbers. Please define exactly what a "whole number radical" is. If you cannot define it in mathematical vocabulary, please give two or three examples so we can at least try to figure out what you are getting at.

Indeed: most radicals of whole numbers are not whole numbers, but that doesn't mean they can not contribute to the 'wholeness' of a number.

I can't provide a "real" example without providing the identity. However it is much like a quadratic:

ax^2 + bx^2 ± cx / dx^2

[MATH]\dfrac{1}{\phi^3} \text { is NOT identical to } \dfrac{\phi^3}{1} \text { UNLESS } \phi = 1.[/MATH]

This is false.

[MATH]-\ c = 1 \text { is logically inconsistent with } c = \phi^3 \text { UNLESS } \phi = 1.[/MATH]

This is false.

Thus it is IMPOSSIBLE that [MATH]\phi > 4.[/MATH]

This is true, but ϕ^3 > 4.

No matter what its value, what is the relevance of [MATH]\phi?[/MATH]

...it is a transcendental number, and can be seen everywhere in nature. Seems to me any real identity would have it.

So far, you have not provided any sensible explanation of even your very first sentence.

Honestly it wouldn't matter if I did - hardly anyone here can have a conversation without bringing in some kind of ad hominem.

People complain that I don't know my terminology... that is because I am not a mathematician, and this is a math help forum.
 
It is not an equation, it is an identity.
Then what is the identity?

Indeed: most radicals of whole numbers are not whole numbers, but that doesn't mean they can not contribute to the 'wholeness' of a number.

I can't provide a "real" example without providing the identity. However it is much like a quadratic:

ax^2 + bx^2 ± cx / dx^2
What does the "wholeness of a number" even mean?

[MATH]\dfrac{ax^2 + bx^2 \pm cx}{dx^2} = \dfrac{a + b}{d} \pm \dfrac{c}{dx}[/MATH] is not a quadratic.

[MATH]ax^2 + bx^2 + \dfrac{\pm cx}{dx^2} = (a + b)x^2 \pm \dfrac{c}{dx}[/MATH] is not a quadratic.

This is false.

Nonsense.

[MATH]\dfrac{1}{\phi^3} = \dfrac{\phi^3}{1} = \phi^3 \implies \phi^3 * \dfrac{1}{\phi^3} = \phi^3 * \phi^3 \implies 1 = \phi^6 \implies \phi = \sqrt[6]{1} = 1.[/MATH]
This is false.

Yes. There was a typo.

[MATH]-\ c = 1 \implies c = -\ 1.[/MATH]
[MATH]\therefore c = \phi^3 \implies \phi^3 = - 1 \implies \phi = -\ 1.[/MATH]
This is true, but ϕ^3 > 4.

Nonsense.

Depending on which statement of yours we want to believe [MATH]\phi[/MATH] is 1 or minus 1. In neither case is it greater than 4.

... it is a transcendental number, and can be seen everywhere in nature. Seems to me any real identity would have it.

What do you think an "identity" means in mathematics?

Honestly it wouldn't matter if I did - hardly anyone here can have a conversation without bringing in some kind of ad hominem.

People complain that I don't know my terminology... that is because I am not a mathematician, and this is a math help forum.
If you say "oranges" and mean "airplanes," people will not understand you. If you think you have something to say to mathematicians, learn the vocabulary.

If you want mathematical help, do not reject what people who know some mathematics say.
 
Then what is the identity?

It is being kept safe for now.

What does the "wholeness of a number" even mean?

...it is a whole number, like 1.
1 actually contains radicals inside of it, but is still 'whole'.

[MATH]\dfrac{ax^2 + bx^2 \pm cx}{dx^2} = \dfrac{a + b}{d} \pm \dfrac{c}{dx}[/MATH] is not a quadratic.

[MATH]ax^2 + bx^2 + \dfrac{\pm cx}{dx^2} = (a + b)x^2 \pm \dfrac{c}{dx}[/MATH] is not a quadratic.

I don't know what you would call three terms over a shared base whose relationships to one another are always in golden proportion.
Is there a word mathematicians use for such a thing?

Nonsense.

[MATH]\dfrac{1}{\phi^3} = \dfrac{\phi^3}{1} = \phi^3 \implies \phi^3 * \dfrac{1}{\phi^3} = \phi^3 * \phi^3 \implies 1 = \phi^6 \implies \phi = \sqrt[6]{1} = 1.[/MATH]

[MATH]\dfrac{1}{\phi^3} ≠ \dfrac{\phi^3}{1}[/MATH]
[MATH]\dfrac{1}{\phi-^3} = \dfrac{\phi^3}{1}[/MATH]
[MATH]-\ c = 1 \implies c = -\ 1.[/MATH]
[MATH]\therefore c = \phi^3 \implies \phi^3 = - 1 \implies \phi = -\ 1.[/MATH]

[MATH]{\phi^3}[/MATH] does not equal 1, it equals 4.23606797...

Nonsense.

Depending on which statement of yours we want to believe [MATH]\phi[/MATH] is 1 or minus 1. In neither case is it greater than 4.

[MATH]{\phi}[/MATH] is 1.618...
[MATH]{\phi^2}[/MATH] is 2.618...
[MATH]{\phi^3}[/MATH] is 4.236...

What do you think an "identity" means in mathematics?

I don't care what an identity means 'in mathematics': an identity is an identity, period. If there is an equation whose only two possible outcomes are 1 and [MATH]{\phi^3}[/MATH], this is an identity.

If you say "oranges" and mean "airplanes," people will not understand you. If you think you have something to say to mathematicians, learn the vocabulary.

If you want mathematical help, do not reject what people who know some mathematics say.

I only reject what I know is false, no matter where it comes from.
 
Of course it is.

Amazing.

It certainly is amazing. Here, I made this for you:

One from Phi.jpg

The full "identity" is rooted/based in this way, such that when taking a single power off the base, the identity becomes π...

pi.jpg

So forgive me if I don't know the "terminology" for something that nobody else seems to know about, let alone "termed".

It would be nice if someone could simply help by telling me what these "exact forms" in the former graphic actually are.
 
First image.
Why are you including the [math]\pi[/math]s? They just cancel out.
On one side you have [math]\phi[/math] then an arrow and [math]\phi ^2[/math]. What is the meaning of the "1" under the arrow?

Second image. Where did these numbers come from? They don't seem to have any relationship between this image and the first.

If you expect to have any conversation about this at all you are going to have to start explaining things. If you persist with confidentiality then you will have to get a Peer Review in order to try to win a Millenium Prize and you are nowhere near being able to do that. So you have a choice: Stay silent and not get anywhere here or open up and get some (badly needed) help. We simply can't help you if we don't know what you are talking about.

-Dan
 
First image.
Why are you including the [math]\pi[/math]s? They just cancel out.
On one side you have [math]\phi[/math] then an arrow and [math]\phi ^2[/math]. What is the meaning of the "1" under the arrow?

They would only cancel out as 1 if not building upon, but replacing pi with 1 is actually a mistake:
it assumes there are no identities which relies on the transcendental nature of pi, given pi contains
an intrinsic radius-to-circumference relationship. Once pi is dropped, the expression is geometrically meaningless.

The meaning of the '1' under the arrow is to indicate that by simply squaring phi,
recalling it is an irrational number, a natural '1' emerges such that you have phi,
which is irrational, giving rise to '1'. I don't understand how "mathematicians"
overlook the importance of that: transcendental becomes real and natural.

If not having started with pi, this transcendence would be meaningless, as
the '1' is already denoted by whoever decided to use '1' instead of allowing pi to produce it naturally.
Now the concerned '1' in any equation need not be the meaningless number/digit '1' but, say, unity.

Second image. Where did these numbers come from? They don't seem to have any relationship between this image and the first.

These numbers came from the concerned identity, when reducing the base by one power. For example, the identity is 1, phi^3, each over p^2. When setting p^1 reveals the numbers in the second image.

They are only related in that the concerned identity relates to the identity of phi^2, but has an intricate 3rd term ±c.

If you expect to have any conversation about this at all you are going to have to start explaining things. If you persist with confidentiality then you will have to get a Peer Review in order to try to win a Millenium Prize and you are nowhere near being able to do that. So you have a choice: Stay silent and not get anywhere here or open up and get some (badly needed) help. We simply can't help you if we don't know what you are talking about.

-Dan

It's not that you don't know, it's that you don't listen: I am asking a very simple question,
and everyone keeps diverting and focusing on things I'd rather not even talk about.

what is the correct "terminology" of the whatever-it-is in the top corners of the first image?

I am able to do it - I'm just not willing to write up a paper to submit to some journal
over verifying 1=1. If the mathematicians have to argue over that, I'm not interested.
Besides I found the solution to the number theory problem via pursuing a different problem entirely:
however at the roots they are related. It is the reason I came here: for "help" but all I am getting
is people who are full of enmity and generally bad attitudes. I just came here for help,
and this place is not unlike the rest: full of people who blame others for their own being angry.

So are we able to focus on the actual question I have been asking?
 
Last edited:
The meaning of the '1' under the arrow is to indicate that by simply squaring phi,
recalling it is an irrational number, a natural '1' emerges such that you have phi,
which is irrational, giving rise to '1'. I don't understand how "mathematicians"
overlook the importance of that: transcendental becomes real and natural.
The only way that this could work is that you are rescaling the number system by using [math]\phi[/math] as your unit value. So any number, N, on the real number line becomes [math]\dfrac{N}{\phi}[/math]. But what is the purpose of all this? [math]\dfrac{\pi}{\phi}[/math] is still transcendental.

What do you mean by "transcendental real and natural" ? Transcendentals are real and I have no idea what you mean by "natural." Again, you are going to have to define your terms more precsiely before we can really talk about this.

It's not that you don't know, it's that you don't listen: I am asking a very simple question,
and everyone keeps diverting and focusing on things I'd rather not even talk about.
We are trying to listen but you seem to know so little of the required terminology to discuss your ideas that it's like trying to teach Advanced Physics to a 3rd grader.

So are we able to focus on the actual question I have been asking?
And what is the question you have been asking? Is it this?
He is speaking about the zeta function encoding information about the primes, containing all of them. If we suppose for a moment someone had the ability to see this encoding, what piece of information would prove/disprove the hypothesis? Is there a for-sure way to check?
You have had this question answered by JeffM. You asked for more information and in post #5 you brought up the whole business of [math]\phi ^3[/math] being 1, which caused all of this confusion.

So I ask: What exactly is your question?

-Dan
 
The only way that this could work is that you are rescaling the number system by using [math]\phi[/math] as your unit value. So any number, N, on the real number line becomes [math]\dfrac{N}{\phi}[/math]. But what is the purpose of all this? [math]\dfrac{\pi}{\phi}[/math] is still transcendental.

What do you mean by "transcendental real and natural" ? Transcendentals are real and I have no idea what you mean by "natural." Again, you are going to have to define your terms more precsiely before we can really talk about this.

This is false: the number system is not being re-scaled. The unit value is '1' and N does not become N/phi. Phi is not even in the denominator, only pi is.

Nevermind my terminology and just address the question asked:

what is the correct "terminology" of the whatever-it-is in the top corners of the first image?

How am I supposed to use the correct terminology when nobody will tell me what it is,
instead choose to ad hominem?

We are trying to listen but you seem to know so little of the required terminology to discuss your ideas that it's like trying to teach Advanced Physics to a 3rd grader.

No you are not trying to listen: you and the rest are incessantly searching for ways to make me feel as bad about myself as possible.
It is what truly pathetic people do, but as my research happens to relate to it, I take is as data.

And what is the question you have been asking? Is it this?

Are you serious? I just gave you the question in the last post:

what is the correct "terminology" of the whatever-it-is in the top corners of the first image?

The reason you can not answer the question is because the only thing you actually care about is personal attacks.
It is the same with the others here: focusing on people, and not ideas.

You have had this question answered by JeffM. You asked for more information and in post #5 you brought up the whole business of [math]\phi ^3[/math] being 1, which caused all of this confusion.

So I ask: What exactly is your question?

-Dan

what is the correct "terminology" of the whatever-it-is in the top corners of the first image?

Now will you answer the question? Or continue looking for ways to attack me? Which one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top