CZcams seems to delete my replies since they are too long, maybe if I comment here it would be posted, so here are a few of them combined: The reason we have proofs in the first place is to avoid issues like the one we have now. What kind of proof did you use? Induction? Contradiction? When mathematicians use the word 'proof,' they don't have their own relativistic interpretation of that word. Proofs in mathematics are not like those in any other field or language. By 'proof,' mathematicians refer to a methodology that will establish the theorem as absolutely true, regardless of the way of thinking or looking at it. It is a universal language. That is why you need to understand what a proof is and what people mean when they say that you need proof in mathematics. A proof does not need to contain the reasoning behind it, how the writer arrived at it, or the intuition to think about it. Even if someone doesn't understand something at all, if they see a mathematical proof, they can use the universal standard methodology to check if the theorem is true based on that proof. They don't need to have the slightest intuition about what the hypothesis means or represents. The thing is, as I already said, mathematicians don't have trouble having intuition for understanding the Riemann hypothesis; they have trouble proving that it is true. Just like with the Navier-Stokes equation, it is such an intuitive and natural equation that everyone could somehow derive it. But we still haven't proven whether smooth solutions always exist in three dimensions. If you think about it, they must exist since they describe the movement of fluid around us. But just like with the Riemann hypothesis, we still don't have proof for it. For example, besides numerous errors, I will point out one easy-to-understand error in explanation 6, where you put that exp(itheta)^(1^(-1)) = exp(itheta)^(-1^(1)). This is obviously false. For example, 5^(-1^1) is not equal to 5^(1^(-1)). One is 1/5, while the other is 5, because 1^-1 is not equal to -1^1. I could point out many other mistakes, but what is the point? You already had positive criticism, and I hope that I'm wrong in thinking you don't have the mental and moral strength to admit that you are wrong. You don't understand the subject enough to fix all the errors and make it work. Your whole reasoning behind all of this is very wrong. The source of all errors in this paper is an unguided and unethical way of thinking, which led you into this mess in the first place. Now, what are the steps in the right direction? I understand you want to get into advanced math. You need first to read the books I mentioned above and do all the exercises (they are key). Since you have issues with multidimensional abstraction and imaginary numbers, which I won't even bother explaining since there are numerous books on that subject, I suggest you go from proofs and logic into linear algebra (Gilbert Strang's "Introduction to Linear Algebra" is a good one), which is about what you could call multidimensional mathematics, and some real analysis (Abbott's "Understanding Analysis" is a good one), which is a prerequisite for complex analysis that will fix all your misconceptions about imaginary numbers. These will guide you and show you the real beauty of consistent and provable mathematics.
very well said. i hope he understands that none of us is hostile or anything. if he puts so much work into first understanding the key principles, he might have a shot at trying to understand the real issue behind the riemann hypothesis. but solving it without any deeper understanding of the subject is simply impossible. and im 100% sure there wont be an easy proof to this, if at all.
I have a simpler proof. Look at some non-trivial zeros of the ZF, note that their real part is always 0.5. Hence all zeta zeroes lie on the critical strip
You can stop the notification of my videos, if you don't know how to do that please google it or seek somebody's help. I can't stop it until I clear all the doubts about my work in the way they understand. Thank you for being considerate to me.
@@rhsolved why do you refuse to accept that you simply didnt prove anything? if youre really into maths then make yourself clear how important the "=" sign is and what it actually means.
Maybe you can get in touch with someone from the Clay Mathematics Institute, the ones in charge of the Millenium Prize Problems, the Riemann Hyphotesis being one of them.
I don't want money so I don't want to waste my time and energy, through the CZcams channel I am promoting my work so that math people can work further in the direction I got the proof, I don't know how many people I can convince in my life (say another 5-10 years). My work is already published, so let clay institute accumulate that 1 million dollar for other philanthropy work they do. Here goes my published paper link: www.rroij.com/open-access/exhaustive-to-elementary-proofs-of-riemann-hypothesis.php?aid=92233
Bcoz I took the pain of unifying it and from all directions I shown it to be 1, may it be through Euler's identity, plain induction approach, calculas, integral, Ramanujan sum and of course alternate functional equation, and you keep counting. All road goes to unit circle the key to Riemann hypothesis along with many more problems like closure of factorials, closure of negative logarithm etc. I don't know you will make it or return empty handed, try to connect all the dots your self before you attempt my paper.
@@rhsolved well, youre making false assumptions and therefore you try to "make the circle" - but it doesnt work. So you really think that nobody else before has tried to solve it that way? Are you really that delusional?
@@rhsolved I see a problem here; you probably confused proof with intuition. It is indeed doubtful. If you have a proof, why did you state, "I don't know how many people I can convince in my life"? Why focus so much on historical stories and physics instead of providing the proof directly? Your video and paper seem to point out irrelevant details. If you had a real proof of the Riemann hypothesis, you would publish it instead of this nonsense. What you might have is some intuition about why the Riemann hypothesis is true. But feeling you understand something doesn't guarantee that you do, or that it is true. If you want to prove this hypothesis, I suggest reading Velleman's "How to Prove It: A Structured Approach (2019)." This book offers basic tools for understanding and creating real proofs. Don't skip the exercises-they are key. Then, continue with Polya's "How to Solve It" or "The Proof from the Book" to gain necessary skills for making real proofs and understanding them in the mathematical world.
Convincing mean to make those sceptics believe that duality is reality, unification is harmonising the seemingly unrelated concepts and drawing a bigger picture and the hardest part imaginary number iota could be real, here is my published paper www.rroij.com/open-access/exhaustive-to-elementary-proofs-of-riemann-hypothesis.php?aid=92233
@@rhsolved It looks like you didn't read or understand what I was talking about. You don't need to convince me if you already have the proof. Your paper doesn't show the necessary proof. I have already given you directions on how to understand mathematical proof. I also see you have issues understanding the nature of complex numbers. This suggests you haven't had sufficient exposure to some of the most necessary mathematics. You think you are smarter than others and that people in the comments don't understand you or are giving you hate. Actually, you don't understand math well enough and don't listen to comments. Your mind seems to be chained by pride and a lack of education, and that is why you are embarrassing yourself. When you start learning with a humble and open mind and try to understand what some people in the comments are really trying to tell you, then you will be free, and you will advance.
The degrees of Passion is higher degree than university degree. I don't want to publish it anymore, it's published here: www.rroij.com/open-access/exhaustive-to-elementary-proofs-of-riemann-hypothesis.php?aid=92233
@@rhsolved Hi I looked at that paper and the first error appears to be on page two. Whilst it is true that Eta(s) is equal to (1/(2^(s-1))) * Zeta(s), Eta(s) is not equal to the sum of n from 1 to infinity of (2/((2n)^s)). This invalidates all of your next steps.
@@minerscale@rhsolved see? Providing such a proof has to be clear from mistakes. If theres just a single mistake where your next assumption is based on, it all falls apart. And no, "degree of passion" is worthless. Youre not ramanujan, youre not a genius. If you refuse to even get a maths degree, why do you even publish this nonsense? But the even worse mistake is that you actually have the audacity to think that youre smarter than any other highly skilled mathematician who tried solving this. Whats up lately with ppl thinking theyre smarter than the whole world?
@@rhsolvedYoure not ramanujan. You have 0 mathematical background. Do you honestly think that nobody else tried your "approach" before? How delusional can you be?
CZcams seems to delete my replies since they are too long, maybe if I comment here it would be posted, so here are a few of them combined:
The reason we have proofs in the first place is to avoid issues like the one we have now. What kind of proof did you use? Induction? Contradiction? When mathematicians use the word 'proof,' they don't have their own relativistic interpretation of that word. Proofs in mathematics are not like those in any other field or language. By 'proof,' mathematicians refer to a methodology that will establish the theorem as absolutely true, regardless of the way of thinking or looking at it. It is a universal language. That is why you need to understand what a proof is and what people mean when they say that you need proof in mathematics.
A proof does not need to contain the reasoning behind it, how the writer arrived at it, or the intuition to think about it. Even if someone doesn't understand something at all, if they see a mathematical proof, they can use the universal standard methodology to check if the theorem is true based on that proof. They don't need to have the slightest intuition about what the hypothesis means or represents.
The thing is, as I already said, mathematicians don't have trouble having intuition for understanding the Riemann hypothesis; they have trouble proving that it is true. Just like with the Navier-Stokes equation, it is such an intuitive and natural equation that everyone could somehow derive it. But we still haven't proven whether smooth solutions always exist in three dimensions. If you think about it, they must exist since they describe the movement of fluid around us. But just like with the Riemann hypothesis, we still don't have proof for it.
For example, besides numerous errors, I will point out one easy-to-understand error in explanation 6, where you put that exp(itheta)^(1^(-1)) = exp(itheta)^(-1^(1)). This is obviously false. For example, 5^(-1^1) is not equal to 5^(1^(-1)). One is 1/5, while the other is 5, because 1^-1 is not equal to -1^1.
I could point out many other mistakes, but what is the point? You already had positive criticism, and I hope that I'm wrong in thinking you don't have the mental and moral strength to admit that you are wrong. You don't understand the subject enough to fix all the errors and make it work. Your whole reasoning behind all of this is very wrong. The source of all errors in this paper is an unguided and unethical way of thinking, which led you into this mess in the first place.
Now, what are the steps in the right direction? I understand you want to get into advanced math. You need first to read the books I mentioned above and do all the exercises (they are key). Since you have issues with multidimensional abstraction and imaginary numbers, which I won't even bother explaining since there are numerous books on that subject, I suggest you go from proofs and logic into linear algebra (Gilbert Strang's "Introduction to Linear Algebra" is a good one), which is about what you could call multidimensional mathematics, and some real analysis (Abbott's "Understanding Analysis" is a good one), which is a prerequisite for complex analysis that will fix all your misconceptions about imaginary numbers. These will guide you and show you the real beauty of consistent and provable mathematics.
very well said. i hope he understands that none of us is hostile or anything. if he puts so much work into first understanding the key principles, he might have a shot at trying to understand the real issue behind the riemann hypothesis. but solving it without any deeper understanding of the subject is simply impossible. and im 100% sure there wont be an easy proof to this, if at all.
What if there's a easy proof but we need to interpret it with a different perspectives.
@@rhsolved there very much could be but it isnt the proof you showed in your previous videos
So your target is my work alone, then you won't make anything out of my proof. Let's end it here.
I have a simpler proof. Look at some non-trivial zeros of the ZF, note that their real part is always 0.5. Hence all zeta zeroes lie on the critical strip
If your "patterns" are valid, then this proof should be also valid
May be.
Yeah should be like this after the RH saga is over.
Please stop making these videos. Thank you.
You can stop the notification of my videos, if you don't know how to do that please google it or seek somebody's help. I can't stop it until I clear all the doubts about my work in the way they understand. Thank you for being considerate to me.
@@rhsolved why do you refuse to accept that you simply didnt prove anything? if youre really into maths then make yourself clear how important the "=" sign is and what it actually means.
Maybe you can get in touch with someone from the Clay Mathematics Institute, the ones in charge of the Millenium Prize Problems, the Riemann Hyphotesis being one of them.
I don't want money so I don't want to waste my time and energy, through the CZcams channel I am promoting my work so that math people can work further in the direction I got the proof, I don't know how many people I can convince in my life (say another 5-10 years). My work is already published, so let clay institute accumulate that 1 million dollar for other philanthropy work they do. Here goes my published paper link: www.rroij.com/open-access/exhaustive-to-elementary-proofs-of-riemann-hypothesis.php?aid=92233
You can have your proof verified and decline the award and the money, just as Perelman did
@@rhsolved z(1) is never = 1 but you keep on using that - why?
Bcoz I took the pain of unifying it and from all directions I shown it to be 1, may it be through Euler's identity, plain induction approach, calculas, integral, Ramanujan sum and of course alternate functional equation, and you keep counting. All road goes to unit circle the key to Riemann hypothesis along with many more problems like closure of factorials, closure of negative logarithm etc. I don't know you will make it or return empty handed, try to connect all the dots your self before you attempt my paper.
@@rhsolved well, youre making false assumptions and therefore you try to "make the circle" - but it doesnt work. So you really think that nobody else before has tried to solve it that way? Are you really that delusional?
Very doubtful claim!
There is no doubt as it finally gave the proof, you can change the word to thoughtful.
@@rhsolved I see a problem here; you probably confused proof with intuition.
It is indeed doubtful. If you have a proof, why did you state, "I don't know how many people I can convince in my life"? Why focus so much on historical stories and physics instead of providing the proof directly? Your video and paper seem to point out irrelevant details. If you had a real proof of the Riemann hypothesis, you would publish it instead of this nonsense.
What you might have is some intuition about why the Riemann hypothesis is true. But feeling you understand something doesn't guarantee that you do, or that it is true.
If you want to prove this hypothesis, I suggest reading Velleman's "How to Prove It: A Structured Approach (2019)." This book offers basic tools for understanding and creating real proofs. Don't skip the exercises-they are key. Then, continue with Polya's "How to Solve It" or "The Proof from the Book" to gain necessary skills for making real proofs and understanding them in the mathematical world.
Convincing mean to make those sceptics believe that duality is reality, unification is harmonising the seemingly unrelated concepts and drawing a bigger picture and the hardest part imaginary number iota could be real, here is my published paper www.rroij.com/open-access/exhaustive-to-elementary-proofs-of-riemann-hypothesis.php?aid=92233
@@rhsolved It looks like you didn't read or understand what I was talking about. You don't need to convince me if you already have the proof. Your paper doesn't show the necessary proof. I have already given you directions on how to understand mathematical proof.
I also see you have issues understanding the nature of complex numbers. This suggests you haven't had sufficient exposure to some of the most necessary mathematics. You think you are smarter than others and that people in the comments don't understand you or are giving you hate. Actually, you don't understand math well enough and don't listen to comments. Your mind seems to be chained by pride and a lack of education, and that is why you are embarrassing yourself.
When you start learning with a humble and open mind and try to understand what some people in the comments are really trying to tell you, then you will be free, and you will advance.
@@alex29661I'm getting whiplash going from reading their comments to reading yours
upload it to arxiv
How to do that, I don't have any math degree, who will endorse me?
@@rhsolved , you don't have a degree and you claim to be able of proving that?! Yeah, right....
The degrees of Passion is higher degree than university degree. I don't want to publish it anymore, it's published here: www.rroij.com/open-access/exhaustive-to-elementary-proofs-of-riemann-hypothesis.php?aid=92233
@@rhsolved Hi I looked at that paper and the first error appears to be on page two. Whilst it is true that Eta(s) is equal to (1/(2^(s-1))) * Zeta(s), Eta(s) is not equal to the sum of n from 1 to infinity of (2/((2n)^s)). This invalidates all of your next steps.
@@minerscale@rhsolved see? Providing such a proof has to be clear from mistakes. If theres just a single mistake where your next assumption is based on, it all falls apart. And no, "degree of passion" is worthless. Youre not ramanujan, youre not a genius. If you refuse to even get a maths degree, why do you even publish this nonsense? But the even worse mistake is that you actually have the audacity to think that youre smarter than any other highly skilled mathematician who tried solving this.
Whats up lately with ppl thinking theyre smarter than the whole world?
oh no, some kind of terrence howard maniac, pls dont xd
But it's true and some day mankind has to accept it.
@@rhsolvedYoure not ramanujan. You have 0 mathematical background. Do you honestly think that nobody else tried your "approach" before? How delusional can you be?