3 proofs of Riemann Hypothesis and 5 proofs of abc conjecture

[questfortruth]

abc conjecture - Wikipedia

Riemann hypothesis - Wikipedia

First proof of Riemann Hypothesis:
1. Dr. Robin has shown, that the number of counter-examples can not be a finite number. For example, not 1, not 56, and not 676940303.
2. Hence, the huge amount of counter-examples is excluded.
3. Hence, there are no counter-examples.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12022.52804/1

Several mathematicians have addressed the Riemann hypothesis, but none of their attempts has yet been accepted as a proof.

I appeal to common sense. Even hugest number of counter-examples is excluded!

Here's an analogy: Suppose I claim that all numbers (except 1) are composite. If I prove that the number of counter-examples is not finite, have I proved that there are no primes? Recall that there are an infinite number of primes.

Do you claim, that my argument sounds illogical? It might rase feeling of doubt, but the logic stays.

Exactly. The previous result says that there are either none or an infinite number. To show that there are none, you need to show there are not an infinite number. You did not do that. In fact, you essentially re-iterated that there are not finitely many.

My God says: "the author is right."
Your god says: "the author is in delusion."
It is not problem of logic, but of the gods mismatch.
More about them: My Worldview in full

Deities are irrelevant in this. The rules of math and logic are clear. You simply didn't manage to do what you claimed.

Let the number of counter-examples be X, Dr. Robin has proven
that the X can not be finite. Any human knows only that, what his god is
telling him. The Russian God tells Russians to repeatedly elect Mr. Putin.
My God knows perfectly well that I have logic here:
1. Number X can not be finite (not 1, not 576, not 694739303).
2. Hence, it can not be huge.
3. Hence, it is zero. The X has three variants: zero, finite, huge. The finite and huge are excluded.
Your god might be a different god. If he tells you that this logic is not logical,
then we have gods' incompatibility, not a problem with logic.

 

[ChristineM]

abc conjecture - Wikipedia

Riemann hypothesis - Wikipedia

First proof of Riemann Hypothesis:
1. Dr. Robin has shown, that the number of counter-examples can not be a finite number. For example, not 1, not 56, and not 676940303.
2. Hence, the huge amount of counter-examples is excluded.
3. Hence, there are no counter-examples.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12022.52804/1

All numbers are finite.

If they are counter examples then science/mathematics would not simply exclude them. Any half decent researcher would evaluate said counter examples and if valid, update their hypothesis to include said example.

Oh right that would pop your bubble wouldn't it?

Excluding counter examples does not mean there are none, it means you excluded them and fortunately most of us do not live in dictatorships

 

[questfortruth]

Oh right that would pop your bubble wouldn't it?

Well, what about the second proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, please look in the file.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, what about the second proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, please look in the file.

What about it, the first so called proof was total rubbish i mathematical and scientific terns, i have no reason to believe 2 and 3 are much different.

 

[ChristineM]

From

Riemann hypothesis - Wikipedia

Several mathematicians have addressed the Riemann hypothesis, but none of their attempts has yet been accepted as a proof.

 

[questfortruth]

Several mathematicians have addressed the Riemann hypothesis, but none of their attempts has yet been accepted as a proof.

I appeal to common sense. Even hugest number of counter-examples is excluded!

 

[Polymath257]

I appeal to common sense. Even hugest number of counter-examples is excluded!

Yes, any *finite* number of total counter-examples is excluded.

Here's an analogy: Suppose I claim that all numbers (except 1) are composite. If I prove that the number of counter-examples is not finite, have I proved that there are no primes? Recall that there are an infinite number of primes.

 

[questfortruth]

Here's an analogy: Suppose I claim that all numbers (except 1) are composite. If I prove that the number of counter-examples is not finite, have I proved that there are no primes? Recall that there are an infinite number of primes.

1. Do you claim, that my argument sounds illogical? It might rase feeling of doubt, but the logic stays.

2. There is infinite number of solutions of sin(x)=0. For example, 0, pi, 2pi. But that does not mean, that there can not be a finite number of solutions in total. Because if it is said, that sin(x)=0 can not have a finite number of solutions, it can not have a huge number of solutions.

 

[Polymath257]

1. Do you claim, that my argument sounds illogical? It might rase feeling of doubt, but the logic stays.

2. There is infinite number of solutions of sin(x)=0. For example, 0, pi, 2pi. But that does not mean, that there can not be a finite number of solutions in total.

Actually, that is *precisely* what it means to say that there are infinitely many solutions. The total number of solutions is NOT finite.

Because if it is said, that sin(x)=0 can not have a finite number of solutions, it can not have a huge number of solutions.

It does NOT have a finite number of solutions in total: it has an infinite number.

More accurately, the set of solutions is an infinite set, not a finite set.

In regards to RH: the set of violations is either empty or is an infinite set. You have not shown that it is empty.

 

[questfortruth]

It does NOT have a finite number of solutions in total: it has an infinite number.

It is not known that the Riemann Hypothesis has infinite number of counter-examples.
It is known that sin(x)=0 has infinite number of solutions.

There is difference.

 

[Polymath257]

It is not known that the Riemann Hypothesis has infinite number of counter-examples.
It is known that sin(x)=0 has infinite number of solutions.

There is difference.

Exactly. The previous result says that there are either none or an infinite number. To show that there are none, you need to show there are not an infinite number. You did not do that. In fact, you essentially re-iterated that there are not finitely many.

 

[questfortruth]

Exactly. The previous result says that there are either none or an infinite number. To show that there are none, you need to show there are not an infinite number. You did not do that. In fact, you essentially re-iterated that there are not finitely many.

My God says: "the author is right."
Your god says: "the author is in delusion."
It is not problem of logic, but of the gods mismatch.
More about them: My Worldview in full

 

[Polymath257]

My God says: "the author is right."
Your god says: "the author is in delusion."
It is not problem of logic, but of the gods mismatch.
More about them: My Worldview in full

Deities are irrelevant in this. The rules of math and logic are clear. You simply didn't manage to do what you claimed.

 

[questfortruth]

Deities are irrelevant in this. The rules of math and logic are clear. You simply didn't manage to do what you claimed.

Let the number of counter-examples be X, Dr. Robin has proven
that the X can not be finite. Any human knows only that, what his god is
telling him. The Russian God tells Russians to repeatedly elect Mr. Putin.
My God knows perfectly well that I have logic here:
1. Number X can not be finite (not 1, not 576, not 694739303).
2. Hence, it can not be huge.
3. Hence, it is zero. The X has three variants: zero, finite, huge. The finite and huge are excluded.
Your god might be a different god. If he tells you that this logic is not logical,
then we have gods' incompatibility, not a problem with logic.

 

[Polymath257]

Let the number of counter-examples be X, Dr. Robin has proven
that the X can not be finite. Any human knows only that, what his god is
telling him. The Russian God tells Russians to repeatedly elect Mr. Putin.
My God knows perfectly well that I have logic here:
1. Number X can not be finite (not 1, not 576, not 694739303).
2. Hence, it can not be huge.
3. Hence, it is zero. The X has three variants: zero, finite, huge. The finite and huge are excluded.
Your god might be a different god. If he tells you that this logic is not logical,
then we have gods' incompatibility, not a problem with logic.

if huge is infinite, then your 2nd claim is simply false, as shown by examples in this thread. The number of solutions to sin x=0 isn't finite and it is not zero. is it 'huge'? Only if huge means infinite. And that shoews why your logic failed.

 

[questfortruth]

if huge is infinite, then your 2nd claim is simply false, as shown by examples in this thread. The number of solutions to sin x=0 isn't finite and it is not zero. is it 'huge'? Only if huge means infinite. And that shoews why your logic failed.

You are way too fixated on infinity. What does it mean to have infinite number of apples? It caries no information about amount of apples. Only a definitive number carries information. Any number is either zero, finite, or huge. The infinity is the following effect: for every number there is a greater number. The infinity is not a number, but an effect, a mathematical law.

 

[Polymath257]

You are way too fixated on infinity. What does it mean to have infinite number of apples? It caries no information about amount of apples. Only a definitive number carries information. Any number is either zero, finite, or huge. The infinity is the following effect: for every number there is a greater number. The infinity is not a number, but an effect, a mathematical law.

Simply wrong. We are no longer doing Aristotelian 'potential infinity' vs 'actual infinity'. We are doing Cantorian set theory which allows for *actual* infinity. As you even pointed out, the set of solutions to sin x=0 is infinite. It isn't simply 'huge': it is actually infinite.

So, the question for RH is whether the set of violations is infinite or not. You have not resolved that issue, but have instead merely parroted the result that the set of violations cannot be finite and non-empty.

 

[questfortruth]

Simply wrong. We are no longer doing Aristotelian 'potential infinity' vs 'actual infinity'. We are doing Cantorian set theory which allows for *actual* infinity. As you even pointed out, the set of solutions to sin x=0 is infinite. It isn't simply 'huge': it is actually infinite.

Is Dr.Cantor god?

 

[questfortruth]

We are doing Cantorian set theory which allows for *actual* infinity.

Yes, nowadays we are doing Cantorian set theory which allows for *actual* infinity. This advance in mathematics has given us progress in Fermat's Last Theorem. However, my understanding of infinity as the law of numbers in no way contradicts the Cantor's achievements. It is just a viewpoint on reality, which has no conflict with Cantor's description of it. In Science we are building the models. I have one model, the Cantor has other one. Both models together is complementaritive description of real mathematics.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, nowadays we are doing Cantorian set theory which allows for *actual* infinity. This advance in mathematics has given us progress in Fermat's Last Theorem. However, my understanding of infinity as the law of numbers in no way contradicts the Cantor's achievements. It is just a viewpoint on reality, which has no conflict with Cantor's description of it. In Science we are building the models. I have one model, the Cantor has other one. Both models together is complementaritive description of real mathematics.

And the question of RH is within the standard model. It may well be that there are infinitely many violations to RH. You have not yet shown that isn't the case.

If you managed to do so, you would have a proof.