Discussion:
ETH Zurich, Burse keeps calling, shouts Alzheimer faggot
(too old to reply)
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-17 20:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hey brain farty!
Archimedes Plution is an Alzheimer Faggot

Hey brain farty!

Well you find your vibrating diagonals, already
shown by the Greek that they are also sides:
Loading Image...

And I guess 4 * 4 = 16 was sometimes expressed as
"4-times" 4 = 16 with two different numeral words.

Platons Dialog Menon (~390 v.Chr.) - griech./ dt. (2.Teil: 79e-86c)
SÔ. tettarôn gar tetrakis estin hekkaideka. ouchi?
Sokrates: Denn von vier ist das Vierfache sechzehn. Nicht?
http://12koerbe.de/pan/menon3.htm


77.58.43.158 jan burse

ETH Zurich

Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann, Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-17 23:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
1> 77.58.43.158 jan burse
1> ETH Zurich
1> Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann, Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher
There is also a study that shows a relation ship
between brain fartism and brain fartism,
the conclusions are stunning, brain fartism is
possitivily related to brain fartism,
b***@gmail.com
2017-06-17 23:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I am not affiliated in any way with ETH Zurich,
doesn't push any buttons on me. Looks like your

brain farts have indeed killed all your brain cells.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
1> 77.58.43.158 jan burse
1> ETH Zurich
1> Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann, Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher
There is also a study that shows a relation ship
between brain fartism and brain fartism,
the conclusions are stunning, brain fartism is
possitivily related to brain fartism,
b***@gmail.com
2017-06-17 23:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Or in short: You are wasting your time.
Post by b***@gmail.com
I am not affiliated in any way with ETH Zurich,
doesn't push any buttons on me. Looks like your
brain farts have indeed killed all your brain cells.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
1> 77.58.43.158 jan burse
1> ETH Zurich
1> Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann, Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher
There is also a study that shows a relation ship
between brain fartism and brain fartism,
the conclusions are stunning, brain fartism is
possitivily related to brain fartism,
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-18 05:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
5> > > 1> 77.58.43.158 jan burse
6> > > 1> ETH Zurich
7> > > 1> Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann, Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher
There is also a study that shows a relation ship
between brain fartism and brain fartism,
               ___
             ./_ -\.
           q| ooo |p
-oOOO--~U~--OOOo-

picture of Burse before he went insane

               ___
             ./_ -\.
           q| ooo |p
| oo |
-oOOO--~U~--OOOo-

picture after
b***@gmail.com
2017-06-18 11:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Swiss trademarks cheese, watches and dadaism.

Ke Bock - Single - Nemo 2017
https://itunes.apple.com/ch/album/ke-bock/id1195607270
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
5> > > 1> 77.58.43.158 jan burse
6> > > 1> ETH Zurich
7> > > 1> Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann, Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher
There is also a study that shows a relation ship
between brain fartism and brain fartism,
               ___
             ./_ -\.
           q| ooo |p
-oOOO--~U~--OOOo-
picture of Burse before he went insane
               ___
             ./_ -\.
           q| ooo |p
| oo |
-oOOO--~U~--OOOo-
picture after
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-20 23:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 6:43:57 AM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:

page2, 5th edition of Correcting Math textbook; most mathematicians poor in logic, good in calculating

The Twin Primes conjecture was stated in the time of Euclid in Ancient 
Greek times. And no-one has ever come close to proving the infinitude of twin primes, until 1991. By making a observation of the Indirect method proof of Euclid's Infinitude of Regular Primes it is noticed that the Euclid Number must be necessarily a new prime. That is the key to generating a proof of the Infinitude of Twin Primes. And the reason no mathematician saw the flaw of the indirect proofs of Euclid IP, is because of a lack of logic concerning a irrelevant detail of  1+2x3x5x7x11x13 = 59x509. To a person, not well inclined to logical necessity, they can easily stumble and fall with irrelevancies.
So in words, the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, Indirect in short- form goes like this:

1) Definition of prime 
  
2) Hypothetical assumption, suppose set of primes 2,3,5,7,.. is 
finite with P_k the last and final prime 

3) Multiply the lot and add 1 (Euclid's number) which I call W+1 
  
4) W+1 is necessarily prime 
  
5) contradiction to P_k as the last and largest prime 
  
6) set of primes is infinite.

INDIRECT (contradiction) Method, Long-form; Infinitude of Primes 
Proof and the numbering is different to show the reductio ad absurdum 
structure as given by Thomason and Fitch in Symbolic Logic book.

(1) Definition of prime as a positive integer divisible only by itself and 1.

(2) The prime numbers are the numbers 2,3,5,7,11, ..,pn,... of set S 
  Reason: definition of primes

(3.0) Suppose finite, then 2,3,5, ..,p_n is the complete series set 
  with p_n the largest prime Reason: this is the supposition step

(3.1) Set S are the only primes that exist Reason: from step (3.0)

(3.2) Form W+1 = (2x3x5x, ..,xpn) + 1. Reason: can always operate and 
  form a new number 

(3.3) Divide W+1 successively by each prime of 
  2,3,5,7,11,..pn and they all leave a remainder of 1. 
Reason: unique prime factorization theorem

(3.4) W+1 is necessarily prime. Reason: definition of prime, step 
 (1). 

(3.5) Contradiction Reason: pn was supposed the largest prime yet we  constructed a new prime, W+1, larger than pn 

(3.6) Reverse supposition step. Reason (3.5) coupled with (3.0) 

(4) Set of primes are infinite Reason: steps (1) through (3.6)

The reason the mathematics community from Euclid to 1991 could never 
do a proof of the Infinitude of Twin Primes, has two reasons-- (a) that community could never do a valid Euclid Infinitude of Regular Primes via reductio ad absurdum, and that the Twin Primes proof has only one proof method.
If the Twin Primes proof had several methods such as fetching a Topology proof or fetching a Analysis proof or a Series proof or some form of geometry proof, then the stained and marred Euclid IP indirect would have been continued to be ignored.
But luckily, in 1991 someone noticed that there was a flaw in the 
indirect Euclid IP proof. The flaw is that once the Euclid number is formed "multiply the lot and add 1" it is immediately a new prime and necessarily a new prime under the constraints of the assumption step. The often cited example of 1+2x3x5x7x11x13 = 59x509 was only an irrelevant distraction and only kept Euclid's IP indirect marred in illogic and unable to do Twin Primes proof. Once it is recognized and seen that in the Indirect, what you get is a necessarily two new primes of W+1 and W-1, allows for a quick and easy proof of the Infinitude of Twin Primes.


Now I want to show you the proof of Euclid Infinitude of Primes 
direct method, both short-form and long-form.
And Euclid's IP, Direct or constructive in short-form goes like this: 
  
1) Definition of prime 
  
2) Given any finite set of primes 
  
3) Multiply the lot and add 1 (Euclid's number) which I call W+1 
  
4) Either W+1 is prime or we conduct a prime factor search 
  
5) this new prime increases the set cardinality by one more prime 
  
6) since this operation of increasing set cardinality occurs for 
any 
given finite set we start with, means the primes are infinite set.

DIRECT Method (constructive method), long-form; Infinitude of Primes 
Proof

(1) Definition of prime as a positive integer divisible 
  only by itself and 1.

(2) Statement: Given any finite collection of primes 
 2,3,5,7,11, ..,p_n possessing a cardinality n Reason: given

(3) Statement: we find another prime by considering W+1 =(2x3x...xpn) 
  +1 Reason: can always operate on given numbers

(4) Statement: Either W+1 itself is a prime Reason: Unique Prime Factorization theorem and definition

(5) Statement: Or else it has a prime factor not equal to any of the 2,3,...,pn 
 Reason: Unique Prime Factorization theorem and definition

(6) Statement: If W+1 is not prime, we find that prime factor Reason: 
 We take the square root of W+1 and we do a prime search through all 
 the primes from 2 to 
 square-root of W+1 until we find that prime factor which 
 evenly divides W+1

(7) Statement: Thus the cardinality of every finite set can be 
 increased. Reason: from steps (3) through (6)

(8) Statement: Since all/any finite cardinality set can be increased 
 by one more prime, therefore the set of primes is an infinite set. 
 Reason: going from the existential logical quantifier to the 
 universal 
quantification

Alright, there you have it. Both proofs of Euclid Infinitude of Primes, one the constructive or direct method and the other the contradiction or indirect method.
The one major difference between the two proof methods is the step in which you construct the Euclid Number, W+1, "multiply the lot and add 1". That 
is the step that differentiates the two methods. In the contradiction method W+1 has to be necessarily a new prime. In the contructive method W+1 can be prime or has to have a prime factor search. So the flaw of logic of all Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof before 1991, is that everyone mixed up those two methods. They applied the example of 1+2x3x5x7x11x13 = 59x509 to the 
Contradiction method when that is irrelevant. That example of 
1+2x3x5x7x11x13 = 59x509 is applicable only to the Constructivist method where a prime factor is searched for. In the Contradiction method, the moment W+1 is formed, we cannot look for a prime factor since the supposition assumption was that the primes were finite. We are under the laws of Logical form, not under some weak human mind that is vapid of logic. And thus, in the Contradiction method our only hope of a new prime to beget a contradiction is W+1 itself. And it is necessarily prime because of the assumption supposition.
Now most readers have a difficult time of believing me as to what I have said above. So here is a post to sci.math around 1994 where a different gentleman speaks about the logical necessity that W+1 or Euclid's number must necessarily be prime.

My legal name used to be Ludwig Plutonium when this was posted to sci.math in 1994.

Karl Heuer gives a correct Euclid IP, indirect method
Wrong. Your two numbers are not necessarily prime
NO, YOU ARE WRONG. Those numbers are necessarily prime, due to
UPFAT, all the primes that exist in the finite set leave a remainder
of 1.
I'll give you a lesson of elementary arithmetics. . .
I really shouldn't bother to get involved in this discussion again, but
Ludwig is right. In logical terms, his key statement is "if P is a
finite set containing all the primes, then prod(P)+1 is prime." This is
a true statement.
consider your set of primes to be: {2,3,5,7,11,13}, as I assert 13 to be
the largest prime. [. . .] Now, you made the assertion, that
(2x3x5x11x13) + 1  [=30031] must be prime.
Yes, it's true that if 13 is the largest prime, then 30031 is prime.
Do you disagree with that assertion?
As you stated before, there exists an unique prime decomposition of
30031. This is 59x509. It could be easily shown, that 59 and 509
both are prime.
If 13 is the largest prime, then 59x509 is not a factorization of
30031.
--- end quoting Karl Heuer's post of 1994 ---
--
page3, 5th edition of Correcting Math textbook; Logic in Math-- those that have it are mathematicians, otherwise calculators

page3, 5th edition of Correcting Math textbook; Logic in Math-- those that have it are mathematicians, otherwise calculators

Before I start page3, I should remark that I corrected my misspelling of "announcement". This book is about correcting things.

Now I am deciding where to place the corrections of logic, because it is logical reasoning that gives us mathematics in the first place. Sure, we can do without logic if we do computations and add subtract multiply and divide, but as we do more than computations, we find ourselves having to know Logic in order to have correct answers. So, where do I place the chapter on Logic? I think I place it somewhere in this chapter, since this chapter exposes how little of logic most professors of mathematics really have.

For anyone who does not believe what I am saying that most professors of mathematics cannot even do a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, only 16% managed to do a valid proof and 84% invalid, need only look at Mathematical Intelligencer 2009 "Prime Simplicity" which corroborates my own survey. My survey was conducted in early 1990s. Although Mathematical Intelligencer lists more than the 36 examples that I list in my survey.

Here is an old 2011 post of mine telling the story of Mathematical Intelligencer corroborating my survey, but also it recounts the theft of intellectual property without proper reference. Because the Mathematical Intelligencer stole my survey and never referenced me with credit.

Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.logic, sci.physics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Feb 3 2011 11:38 pm
Subject: Mathematical Intelligencer unable to give Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, indirect method #62 Correcting Math 3rd ed.

Now I include "Mathematical Intelligencer" magazine in this list for 
the first time because in 2009 an article was published in that 
magazine titled "Prime Simplicity" which cited most of the authors that I cite in this book of mine, only I had priority rights of pointing out the error and 
flaws of those authors since the mid 1990s. So I emailed the managing 
editor feeling I had been slighted of my work. I emailed the editor, 
Chandler Davis, asking him to include my name as a reference source in 
a "correction page of a future MI issue" for that article since one of 
the authors of "Prime Simplicity" had participated in my sci.math 
threads correcting the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof. And that the 
format used in "Prime Simplicity" was almost identical to my format of 
listing during the 1990s.  The response I received from Davis in email 
was that Euclid's proof was a closed subject of math. Apparently not 
closed enough for Davis to publish "Prime Simplicity."  Mr. Chandler 
Davis is of the Old Math community that is very uncomfortable about 
the Internet and the sci.math newsgroup as a medium that is just as 
valid of publishing source as a book in print or even math journals. 
We often encounter those in science at the interface between new 
media, who cannot cope and adapt to such a change as what sci.math 
publishing poses for the old way of journal and magazine publishing.
So I felt as though my 1990s work posted to sci.math of listing of 
about 30 published books who did a wrong accounting of Euclid's 
Infinitude of Primes proof, that my work had been partly stolen- 
without-reference, because the editor of Mathematical Intelligencer, 
Mr. Chandler Davis, does not see sci.math as that of the old medium of 
publishing. And funny how in the past few weeks we see the Internet 
publishing as contributing factors for the Tunisia and Egypt social 
uprising and political reform, yet where Mr Davis sees the Internet as 
ho hum and not reference those to sci.math. In sci.math, another 
poster, Bill Dubuque of MIT also raised his voice that some of his 
work was lifted and not referenced, feeling that others look to 
sci.math as a place to freely confiscate without reference attribute.
But as time goes by, it will be seen by future generations that 
sci.math was the premier publishing venue over any magazine, journal 
or book, because of its freedom of publishing and its date time group 
verification, and its instant access to the world public. Why keep 
important new science to be judged by some editor dictator, when you can 
instantly post it to the world to judge.
So in other words, sci.math has already become the superior outlet 
of new science, rather than the old system of peer review and time 
delays, and where stealing of ideas is common.
Many magazines and newspapers around the world are complaining that 
the Internet is taking up their business of reporting and that they 
are folding up or going bankrupt. Well, after this experience with 
Chandler Davis's Mathematical Intelligencer, I would say "good 
riddance." Why should true science or true math, be held hostage to 
editors with judgement attitude problems? And the peer review of pre- 
Internet was mostly that of professor-promotion ladders, not so much a 
weeding out of good science from bad or non science. In the pre- 
Internet days, peer review journals were mostly about some professor 
at a good enough university publishing some trivia which moves him/her 
up the promotion ladder. And when someone sends a paper to a journal 
like Notre Dame University talking about a infinitude of twin primes 
proof to Julia Knight with " Journal of Logic", that Julia is first going to look what University the sender is at for a promotion ladder, rather than the contents and importance of the ideas enclosed in the paper. This is the old way of publishing of mathematics, which thankfully is disappearing, and the new way has appeared since the 1990s as the sci newsgroups such as sci.math. The old ways of publishing science, their days are numbered. The new way of publishing is where there is no parrot editor judging your work, 
but rather, posting to sci.math and let the world judge.
Now there are very many mistakes in this Mathematical Intelligencer 
article of 2009, "Prime Simplicity". And the worst one of them is the 
fact that no-one should talk about whether Euclid's Infinitude of 
Primes proof was a constructive or contradiction method, without the 
authors showing both methods, simultaneously, to compare. This mistake 
of Mathematical Intelligencer leaves the reader with the impression 
that all those authors who thought the proof was Indirect when it was 
actually Direct, that still, their proof was valid. So the authors,of 
Michael Hardy,Catherine Woodgold and editor Chandler Davis cite all 
those proofs that said Euclid's IP was by contradiction when it was by construction, yet not telling the reader that those proof attempts were thus invalid because they mixed up methods.
It is reasonable and logical to expect that Davis, Hardy, Woodgold are 
able to do their own proofs, not borrow someone else (O. Ore). So this 
is a very bad mistake on the part of Chandler Davis as managing editor 
to have published a correction of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes, by a 
statistician and electrical engineer who could not even do their very 
own Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, both methods. And, worst of all, not even able to show an example of a correct proof by contradiction. Very poor 
judgement on the part of Mr. Davis and demonstrates why sci.math has 
become a premier superior medium over that of magazines, books and journals. Sci.math gives mathematicians that of freedom of speech, and not little dictators like Chandler Davis.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-22 06:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Burse loves AP's Riemann Hypothesis proof


Page85, 12-2, many major proofs
AP's Proof of Riemann Hypothesis, part 1 of 2

PART 1 of 2: LOGICAL FLAWS & DISPROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS //Correcting Math 5th ed

MAJOR LOGICAL FLAWS & DISPROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS RH

by Archimedes Plutonium

Introduction:

the connection with PNT and RH Re: Page86, Part 2 of 2: LOGICAL FLAWS & DISPROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS //Correcting Math 5th ed

Now these first two proofs-- Prime Number Theorem PNT and Riemann Hypothesis RH, follow a pattern, a obvious bold and strong pattern.

The pattern is that Old Math has a crazy quilt definition of Series equality. Since Old Math has no borderline with infinity, they have no good definition of what it means for two series to be equal. And so sloppy are they, that they imagine the Series 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 +, . . . the harmonic series is equal to the Series 1+1+1+.... at infinity, Old Math believes those two Series are equal. That is how crazy Old Math was.

And then, of course, when something like PNT comes or RH comes, that having a crazy notion of what is equality for Series, it is little wonder that the nutters of Old Math have troubles with PNT and RH.

AP

Comparing RH to the Prime Number Theorem PNT, in that proof Mathematical Induction on Series, I had a Starting Equality of 100/sqrt10^4 and using sqrt10 base rather than "e" base I have a Starting Equality of 100/4 = 25, and at infinity I Doctor the Ending Equality.

Now, we compare Riemann Hypothesis with its zetas and we also compare the Harmonic Series. The Zetas and the Harmonic Series are never able to give us a Starting Equality to apply a Math Induction proof of RH. What that means is RH is unprovable. It is a false conjecture.

The reason that Riemann Hypothesis is always a failure, is because the two series of Zetas are never equal to each other term per term, because they lack a Starting Equality to form a proof by Mathematical Induction. The Prime Number Theorem is provable because it has a Starting Equality of 100/sqrt10^4 where we have 100/4 by replacing "e base" with sqrt10, and although the prediction count by using sqrt10 is far more sloppy than other formulas based on "e", there can never be a Starting Equality with "e".

The way to prove PNT or RH is via Math Induction, with a Starting Equality and let the Grid Systems be the Math Induction format of "if N then N+1". and at the Infinity borderline wash away the imperfections for a Ending Equality by Doctoring or by tacking on more terms to Equilabrate each series at infinity. This can be seen in the Proof of the Prime Number Theorem. So long as we have a Starting Equality, we can prove PNT.

Why do the Zetas never equal each other but rather-- asymptotically approach one another? It is because they both have BadFractions such as 1/3 = .333... which the 3 digits go beyond the infinity borderline and never able to be tamed into a Starting Equality. Unlike what are GoodFractions 1/8 = 0.125000...

THE LOGIC of the Mechanics of RH proof: the logic here is that RH should parallel the proof of the PNT. Not that Prime Number Theorem is equivalent to RH, but parallel in proof structure.

I have never compared PNT to RH and how RH should be proved using PNT in parallel concert.

Both PNT and RH have huge problems with Series, but it did not stop PNT from having a proof.

CONVERGENCY THEORY precisely defined:

Convergency theory, and what we have is a less strict form of equality. In math we have equality but also we have convergency to make two concepts, each distinct from one another converge to equality at infinity via Math-Induction on series. Not asymptotic approach of two different series.

Convergency boils down to five items:

i) starting equality terms of two items in comparison
ii) Middle terms close together by a lower and upper bounds factor, a "if N then N+1" which is demonstrated by the Grid System.
iii) the terms near the infinity borderline and are either Doctored of formula or are tacked on terms to Equalibrated both series.
iv) the final terms of the two items in comparison are equal "at infinity"
v) convergency has a very close similarity to how Mathematical Induction works in that a starting equality, a ending equality and we say all the terms in the two items under comparison are "convergent equal" in the Middle section

However, I do see a huge problem in a ** starting equality ** for the Zetas. I managed to find starting equalities in PNT such as the primes from 0 to 100 are 100/4 where the 4 is begot from using (sqrt10)^4 rather than using "e log".

So, I see huge problem in getting a STARTING EQUALITY for the Riemann and Euler Zetas.

So, what I suspect is going to happen is that a proof of PNT is possible because these conditions are able to be satisfied but not satisfied for the zetas of RH.

The RH was invented in a time period of 1800s where infinity was ill-defined and never well-defined and so was the theory of Series. So that the RH was solid Old Math with foggy notion of infinity and a infinity without a border between finite and infinite, so that a Oresme series of 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + . . in Old Math was considered Divergent, of course because infinity was a screwy notion of "forever without any borders".  In New Math, the borderline is found to be 1*10^604 and so Oresme's Series is a finite number Convergent series as should be all Fractional Term series converge. We see from Grid Systems where we pretend that 100 is infinity border that 100 terms in the Harmonic Series 1+1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + . . + 1/100 would converge to approx 5 or thereabouts so that 5% of 100 as infinity border indicates that the larger powers of 10 as infinity border would have a decreasing percent for convergence. So, in Oresme to Euler and Riemann with their ill-defined infinity they would have thought the Harmonic Series diverges when in fact it converges. That effectively puts an end to a proof for RH.

The subject of Logic was never really all that big during the time of both Euler and Riemann and they had errors of logic in their thinking and published work which today's modern day mathematicians have never come face to face with.

So Equality of Series is similar to Mathematical Induction, in that you need a starting case, and then you assume "n" and if "n+1" is true, then the set is equal to the Counting Numbers. For the Zetas, we never have a Starting Equality.

Similar to the Prime Number Theorem of the accounting of the abundance of primes. The formula Li(x) is terribly close to equaling the amount of primes, but it too suffers from never having a starting equality, because the logarithmic function Ln can never give equality. So when I replace Li(x) with sqrt10 as basis, we see that for 100/4 where the 4 is (sqrt(10))^4 gives exactly 25 primes from 1 to 100. So we have a Starting Equality and at the Infinity borderband we can engineer a ending equality and so we have equality of amount of primes with the formula Sqrt10 basis.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON DOT CLOUD of 231Pu


::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
            . \ .  . | .   /.
           . . \. . .|. . /. .
              ..\....|.../...
               ::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
               ::/:::|::\::
              ../....|...\...
           . . /. . .|. . \. .
            . / .  . | .   \ .


http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium

g***@gmail.com
2017-06-18 11:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
5> > > 1> 77.58.43.158 jan burse
6> > > 1> ETH Zurich
7> > > 1> Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann, Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher
There is also a study that shows a relation ship
between brain fartism and brain fartism,
               ___
             ./_ -\.
           q| ooo |p
-oOOO--~U~--OOOo-
picture of Burse before he went insane
               ___
             ./_ -\.
           q| ooo |p
| oo |
-oOOO--~U~--OOOo-
picture after
TRUE STORY!


Jan worked for a big GERMAN software company .....

didn't deliver ....





Made a MOVIE ABOUT HIM


Gentleman Racer | Robbie Williams



https://www.robbiewilliams.com/music/documentary/gentleman-racer



Dec 10, 2000 - Gentleman Racer tells the story of 'Bob Williams 1969 Grand Prix ... day retro-style film of Robbie in character, the video showed Robbie up ...




not Robbie.... the other driver



Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-18 18:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You should really read more issue of the journal of
paleo mathematics, the key to an understanding of
differentiation and integration, already by neanderthalers,
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-20 09:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The failure Burse, never realized the oval was a conic section, not the ellipse. What a failure

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 3:15:00 AM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium is an Alzheimer Faggot

By "The Aesop fable for this lesson, is that when you do
fake science, it consumes a lifetime" you are talking about
your own brain farts? No math for 30 years?
Loading...