Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
sci.physics
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Riemann Hypothesis is false because Euler encoding =/ zeta #1360 Correcting Math
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Archimedes Plutonium  
View profile  
 More options Jan 1 2011, 4:14 pm
Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.logic, sci.physics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:14:37 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Jan 1 2011 4:14 pm
Subject: Re: Riemann Hypothesis is false because Euler encoding =/ zeta #1360 Correcting Math
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Jan 1, 12:50 pm, David R Tribble <da...@tribble.com> wrote:

> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > So with Mathematics ending at 10^603 there is no Riemann Hypothesis
> > because the Euler primes
> > and the zeta function are not equal to each other.

> Since all primes are finite by definition, and if the largest prime
> is less than 10^603, this would present a problem with Euclid's
> Proof of the infinitude of primes.

> Specifically, taking the product of all the primes less than 10^603
> and adding 1 would produce an infinite integer, and thus not a prime.

To be infinite in physics means the end of physics such as "no more
strong nuclear force"
or a perfect vaccuum or reaching absolute zero Kelvin or "no more
Coulomb force."

For mathematics it is the e picture, that mathematics as a subject
ends with 10^603,
not because we can continue searching for primes but because we lose
precision in what we are doing
since we lose Aristotelian Logic and is doing Duality Logic. We no
longer can be sure that
9999....9997 is prime or composite.

So what does a 22nd century mathematician ask about how many primes
there are? He/she can do Euclid's
proof and fetch a set that has a cardinality of 10^603 of only primes.
But does it matter? Because more
than half of that set was numbers fetched from "across the border" as
untrustworthy of actually being prime.

What you fail to understand in this thread, Tribble, is that infinity
is not a quantity, but like physics, infinity is a border or boundary.
So in physics we merely ask "what if there is no strong nuclear force"
then we have infinity. In mathematics when we ask, are the primes
infinite, is asking do they continue in a pattern up to and including
10^603 and that some are across that border.

I do not expect you to understand any of this, after living a life
under a "deluded math with never defining what Finite even means."

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


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google