Proof Of Reimanns Hypothesis

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Proof Of Reimanns Hypothesis

Post by chikoka » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:54 am

Hi guys...i'm very excited!

I think i may have a proof for a very old mathematical hypothesis. The BIG one, Reimanns hypothesis. I mentioned earlier in a previous thread that i had started studying number theory, well it paid of!

So...I would like to know ,what is the best way to publish it. i'm wary of trusting anyone with the proof (it does have a million dollar bounty on it , not to mention some type of immortality).

If there are any mathematical proffesors or a relavant someone who can review it or help me publish it...no offense (to this guy ) but i would need to protect myself from him too.

How do i go about this?

Oh...and is posting a thread like this OK with you D?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Proof Of Reimanns Hypothesis

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:49 am

How to go about it? Not with being paranoia about people stealing it from you. Since you never published before or wrote a thesis (I suppose) I think you'd be surprised how often people find fault with it or can suggest major improvement from an outside perspective. It's very rare for someone out of left field to come with mathematical solutions completely ready and matured. This is why there is not much in place as a service to guide you here.

But to answer your question: make sure there's a proper paper trail.There are services where you can submit papers, like notaries, but when there are many copies, discussions and submissions leading to you way before anyone else comes with it, you'll have at least a decent proof of being the origin. In a way you hide the treasure in broad daylight! In the academic field this is not really a problem since people submit papers through a system which keeps all the tracking. In the end you have to trust something. There are a coupld of Open Access Journals you might try but beware not only the content but also the style and format requires some minimal standards. Better to write it with someone else.Or just put it up somewhere on a site or blog! Or several!

The topic is ok but I'll move it to the Helpdesk section nevertheless.

User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Proof Of Reimanns Hypothesis

Post by chikoka » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:32 am

Hi d..thanks for the reply. Really in new to the field but I have a fully fledged synaesthesia that right now I only have faith in. I don't see numbers as collours but I see paterns in properties. I can for instance scale up and down the properties of odd numbers creating new types of objects as I filter properties out and in. Its all to do with keeping track of symetry.
There's a huge probability that perhaps there is no one to one mapping of the colors I see and the general mathematical subject. So yes I'm very likely mistaken. But some how I think I might be onto something, but that is based largely on faith.

User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Proof Of Reimanns Hypothesis

Post by chikoka » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:38 am

Your statement "Hide the treasure in broad daylight " ,has a very interesting color to it.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:33 pm

Re: Proof Of Reimanns Hypothesis

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:49 pm

Hmm, i don't know why you are worried about it, are you going to make money from this somehow? Its not like the theory of relativity is copyrighted or anything.

As far as math goes, its too much effort to add 37+55 for me, that's what the old calculator's for. But the question is, do I have the energy to move from point A to point B, that is, do I have the energy to swivel the old chair and turn around and type the keyboard that is 1 foot away from me...Only time will tell...
My Documentary: mymovie2 wmv

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Proof Of Reimanns Hypothesis

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:37 am

chikoka wrote:I can for instance scale up and down the properties of odd numbers creating new types of objects as I filter properties out and in. Its all to do with keeping track of symetry.
Perhaps the best way forward is to start working with others on it. You can always share the fame, still better than hearing ten years later someone else got it while you were waiting. If I were in your position I'd start chatting on forums and social media with people having similar interests and some more math experience. Perhaps you can find someone who has related ideas. In the end cooperation is key with these type of things. Or indeed, just throw it out there and trust fate.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:33 pm

Re: Proof Of Reimanns Hypothesis

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:08 am

chikoka wrote:Hi d..thanks for the reply. Really in new to the field but I have a fully fledged synaesthesia that right now I only have faith in. I don't see numbers as collours but I see paterns in properties. I can for instance scale up and down the properties of odd numbers creating new types of objects as I filter properties out and in. Its all to do with keeping track of symetry.
There's a huge probability that perhaps there is no one to one mapping of the colors I see and the general mathematical subject. So yes I'm very likely mistaken. But some how I think I might be onto something, but that is based largely on faith.
Do you make any art?
My Documentary: mymovie2 wmv

Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Proof Of Reimanns Hypothesis

Post by Bobo » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:19 am

I would recommend arxiv.org. The wikipedia says that "While the arXiv does contain some dubious e-prints, such as those claiming to refute famous theorems or proving famous conjectures such as Fermat's last theorem using only high-school mathematics, they are "surprisingly rare".[15] The arXiv generally re-classifies these works, e.g. in "General mathematics", rather than deleting them.[16]"

It seems that to submit to the site you just have to subscribe with a valid e-mail. I would recommend you to read anything you can about riemanns hypothesis and be sure that you understand one or two mathematical proofs of some other theorem. I reached to a proof of the pythagorean theorem the other day, but I've heard that there are more than 300 proofs of it or something, so I probably cannot be of much help.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Proof Of Reimanns Hypothesis

Post by Dan Rowden » Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:48 pm

I've been trying to get three stars on every level of angry birds star wars. I win.

User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Proof Of Reimanns Hypothesis

Post by chikoka » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:55 pm

Hi all

First i would like to congradulate you DR for your acheivement. :)

The proof is based on an extension of set theory. I'll be breif.

The series : 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000... is infinite and has a finite sum. It is the other way of representing the number "1" as "0.999...". This is well known and i

would like it if we dont dwell on that.

Seemingly we can do something infiniy times and still get to the end, since we add 9/10^1 + 9/10^2 ... forever and still get a definite value which is finite.


This is established theory.
So we know what 0.999 is, what of 0.0000...9 ? i.e we have an infinite number of zero's then we get a "9". i may be mistaken but i haven found any literature dealing

with this.
Philosophicaly it represent counting backwards from infinity till you reach zero. One of the shadow/echo thoughts i get [my thoughts usually lead to a fuzz of

equivalent (in someway perhaps logicaly) thoughts and i sometimes struggle to not do this] is that of a person jumping up while floating in zero gravity, i.e wthout

having anything under his feet. Impossible.

Lard once used this to try and prove that there cannot be an infinite past cauz however could we have *come* from there .


Then we are asked what sense can we make of statement "x".

X= "The greatest part of life is simply enjoying the greatest part of life"


so what is it you are simply enjoying?

Statementx(prime);


x(prime)= you are simply ejoying (simply enjoying[simply enjoying(simply enjoying[simply enjoying(.....


somehow we have a definite finitely expressed statement which we can assigne any finite cardinal as a shadow of statement x with respect to its finiteness, lets use

"0" [which striclty speaking is not natural but makes this example more understandable perhaps i should have used inteders instead of naturals].

Statement X(prime) would then represent something strange. X and Xprime are equivalent. In Xprime we will never include the term "greatest part of life" in any of the

nested "simply enjoyings" but we somehow know that we will...at the end ... after an infinite operation.

"0.000...9" or "simply enjoying,simply enjoying....the greatest part of life.

So we assumed 0.000...9 to be meaningles but just as Xprime , being shadowly equivalent to 0.000...9, and yet representing a "finite" statement X, perhaps the

statement 0.000...9 can also have a finite limit.


DISCLAIMER..i have presented this in english but it can be more eloquently expressed using group theory and its understanding of symmetry.


So the whole thing with number theory,.. the BIG prize is finding a function P(n)= [n`th prime number]. Reimans work "suggests" it may be discoverable, but even if his

hypothesis is proved , there is still work needed to be done to reach f(n). so he can at best only "suggest" there is an order, or state that the prime numbers

oscillate about a certain "fulcrum".

My work seeks to prove that there is a P(n) and by extension prove reimmans .


We know that we can build the natural numbers by permutating all the prime numbers [by the fundamental theory of arithmatic]. but there are an infinity of prime

numbers.We still after all the permutations reach the natural number sequence. So "permutating the multiplication of primes" -> "natural number sequence". So we know

the is a way to manipulate the prime sequence to get the natural sequence.

This can be represented by 0.99999 (infinte prime sequence) reaching (infinite natural sequence). We dont know what f(n) that gives the n`th prime number, but looky

here we know that N(n) that gives the n`th natural number is ..N(n)= n. if you plugin any natural numbr you get its position in the series..I.e N(6) gives us 6. So 6

is the 6th natural number.

The problem so far is that we know how to get the natural numbers from the primes (multiplication permutation), i,e keep adding 9's in 0.999... and we will get there ,

reach 1.
But how can we do the reverse, get the prime numbers from the natural. thats important because that would mean each prime number can be mapped to a natural number or

in other ways 1->1st prime number, 2->2nd prime number...THE BIG PRIZE!!.

Moving from the natural numbers to the primes would be like moving from infinity to zero, or 0.000...9. Which we proved above has some sort of sense.

We want natural numbers to primes, or N(n) to P(n).

So we need to find some way to adjust the function we know about; N(n) = n , till it morphs into P(n). So we get the function N(n)=n which is related to 0,1,2,3... And

end up with P(n) = [black box].

What we need to do is progressively alter the natural sequence till it looks like the prime sequence.

The Algorithym;

1st remove all the natural numbers with 2 factors..ie remove (2x2) then (2x3) then (2x5) or the natural numbers made by permutating the multiplication of 2 with

another prime number.
i.e. all 2x(prime sequence) or 2x(2,3,5,7,...)

This will make the natural number sequence we get less natural than the natural sequence and more "primey" Or closer to the prime sequence.

The new sequence is 0,1,2,3,5,7,8,9... Notice no 4 or 2x2 and no 6 or 2x3.


The remove 3x(3,5,7,11...) then 5x(5,7,11...)

Do this with all the prime numbers and you would have removed all composite numbers and be left only with primes.

We now have 0.000...9.

At each stage the function that describes the natural sequence N(n) is altered and now more closely represents P(n) utill when we finsh we now have P(n).

In group theory the symmetry N(n) has with 0,1,2,3,4.. is morphed to a new symmetry, that of P(n) and 2,3,5,7...., and symmetry of N(n) adjusted and New sequence gets

adjusted after every increment.


We have now outlined a method of relating the sequence N to that of P.

The primes do oscillate and reiman was right about what he hypotheised.



I'm not online a lot these days so the errors you *will* probably find, i will not be able to address timely. I will try though.


The synaesthesia part involves symmetry of N and f(n) and the final P and G(n). morphing between them.
This symmetry is described in group theory.

In topology it involves showing that there is a tool (the algorithym) for showing that N and P occupy the same topological space or are topologicaly equivalent.


Mention my name , please... :)

Post Reply