#488 book of science for AP-- Scientific American raises the issue of Riemann Hypothesis totally unsolvable by math for they have the wrong numbers
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 2, 2026, 12:10:01 AM (6 days ago) Jun 2
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Scientific American of June 2026 raises the issue of Why Riemann Hypothesis is Unsolvable, and for good Reason--- the true numbers of Mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, not the inane, stupid, silly Reals with their continuum.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 2, 2026, 3:06:53 AM (6 days ago) Jun 2
to Plutonium Atom Universe
May 31, 2026, 4:23:48 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Old Math and Old Physics were smart enough to have Instantaneous Velocity, but too dumb and stupid to have Instantaneous Energy.
On Saturday, May 30, 2026 at 4:24:23 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(big snips)
So how are they related???? Looking at the units of Action it is simply angular momentum.velocity = LT^-1
energy = ML^2T^-2
action = ML^2 T^-1
frequency = T^-1
Angular momentum = ML^2T^-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP discovers the Integral is Angular Momentum is Instantaneous Energy while the Derivative as velocity is Instanteous speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics has the Principle that Light is a constant maximum speed. It also has a less known Principle called Least Action which basically says that the motion of a particle follows the path of Least Action or Angular Momentum. I like to call it the Least Energy principle. And what it basically means is that Velocity is the dual of Angular Momentum, just as addition is the dual of subtraction; multiplication the dual of division; derivative the dual of integral; electricity the dual of magnetism.
Old Math not only was stupid in never realizing calculus is geometry and seek a geometry proof of FTC, but they did manage to find "Instantaneous Velocity" in spite of their stupidity. But being dumb often means being sloppy, and Old Math --- finding intantaneous velocity, never followed through. Okay, you found instantaneous velocity but struggling to ever teach it, but you failed miserably in finding Instantaneous energy. And I suppose waiting for AP to discover it for you.
Old Math was never smart enough to have a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, because they never had a understanding that Calculus is geometry and the only way forward with a valid proof of FTC was to think of derivative and integral as geometrical slope for derivative and area in that particular cell where the derivative is found.
Being dumb and stupid in Logic by Old Math professors they invented the "Limit analysis" as a means of offering a proof of FTC, for they had no proof at all.
But playing a dance of wiggle waggle on x and y axis as the limit does is Irrelevant. Just ask a math professor who thinks FTC can be proven by talk of a Limit on x and y axis solves anything. Just like asking the math professor how Irrelevant it is to sing the National Anthem in doing the FTC and solving it. If Old Math professors had been required to take 2 years of Logic before getting their degree, surely, some of those wooden heads would have begun to notice that Limit analysis is utterly Irrelevant to a proof of FTC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Math professors are mostly failures of Logic
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific American, SA, June 2026, Joseph Howlett interview with mathematicians over the Riemann Hypothesis. Titled by SA as "The Scariest Problem in Math". Riemann Hypothesis RH, now 170 years old but not true, for AP solved it in early 1990s.
(1)
"An AI that can prove the Riemann hypothesis is not one I'd want to meet," said Andrew Sutherland, a number theorist at .. MIT.
AP writes:: Well Andrew, I certainly would like to meet any math professor at MIT who is not a failure like you who cannot admit slant cut of cone is actually a Oval, not your ellipse. Or, Andrew, understand that Calculus is geometry, thus the only valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires a geometry proof, not your silly stupid "limit dance hornswaggle". And finally, Andrew, how many years of Logic before graduating in school did you take??? Probably none in my guess, because a person with a 1/2 a marble brain in Logic --- could, has the potential to see--- that primes in the Riemann Hypothesis --- that primes are ILL-Defined Concept. And thus no Riemann Hypothesis proof exists because the whole entire conjecture is fantasy land of boneheads of Logic. Andrew-- certainly you can admit that multiplication over the Counting Numbers always turns up ---- another counting number. Logicians call this Consistently Complete to Multiplication. But, now, take any two Counting numbers and divide them--- sometimes they end up being another counting number but more often they end up being a Rational number, not a Counting number. Logicians call that Consistently Incomplete to Division. In other words Andrew--- Primes are figments of the imagination of math failures.
Reals are not the true numbers of mathematics, but that Decimal Grid Numbers form the true numbers of Mathematics. Spend a moment, Andrew, and examine Decimal Grid Numbers--- the smallest set is 10 Grid with 0, .1, .2, . . ., 9.9, 10 having 100 numbers in all not counting 0, then comes the 100 Grid as 0, .01, .02,...., 99.99, 100, and on and on to the infinity borderline at 10^604. So, Andrew, the million dollar question, is --- Do Prime Numbers exist when the True Numbers of Mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers? Answer is No. You see Andrew, your career in math was that of living in a bubble-of-nonlogic, a fantasy world of numbers when you have no logical brain to be doing math.
(2)
Joseph Hewlett ponders and writes:: "What is this math puzzle that is so complicated only a truly formidable superintelligence could resolve it?"
AP writes: Joseph you are only pandering to fools to make RH look good. RH was solved by Archimedes Plutonium in early 1990s, but no mathematician wants to listen to the solution, just as no mathematician, and probably you-- Joseph Hewlett wants to listen to the fact you failed conic sections for you still believe slant cut of cone is a ellipse--- not true, it is a oval. And if any mathematician cannot understand slant cut of cone is a oval, not ellipse, they sure as Hell cannot do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, nor, wrap their microbrain around RH is a flop for Primes are a figment of a hallucination that no primes exist in the true numbers of mathematics--- Decimal Grid Numbers.
Here, Joseph--- AP makes a new proof, a new RH proof in May 2026.
Statement--- the True numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers starting with 10 Grid going up to 10^604 Grid. And we see in every number and integers of those Grid System, that they all have NO PRIME NUMBERS.
Proof that RH is junk:: Since the true numbers of math have no prime numbers, then RH was a delusion by failed Old Math professors.
(3)
"The basic status is: nothing is happening, and I don't really expect anything to happen," says Alex Kontorovich, a mathematician at Rutgers University.
AP writes:: To be expected for AP proves the Ancient over 2,000 year old Apollonius conic section is not a ellipse in slant cut but an oval, proves it is oval in 2016. Nothing is happening in True Math, no, Sunderland and Kontorovich, will go back to the classroom and teach slant cut of cone is ellipse; teach limits as a proof of calculus; teach that primes should fill up your life, when primes as a concept-idea are a decrepit mind illusion. The witches flying on brooms of mathematics.
In 2016, AP proves slant cut of cone is NOT ellipse but oval.
Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse
Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.
That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
E
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F
The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder
| |
| | E
| |
| |
|x c |x
| |
| |
| |
|F |
| |
| |
| |
So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::
A
,'" "`.
/ \
C | c | D
\ /
` . ___ .'
B
The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \
Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse
Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.
That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
E
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F
The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder
| |
| | E
| |
| |
|x c |x
| |
| |
| |
|F |
| |
| |
| |
So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::
A
,'" "`.
/ \
C | c | D
\ /
` . ___ .'
B
The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \
Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
May 31, 2026, 5:11:29 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
2>Scientific American, SA, June 2026, Joseph Howlett interview with mathematicians over the Riemann Hypothesis. Titled by SA as "The Scariest Problem in Math". Riemann Hypothesis RH, now 170 years old but not true, for AP solved it in early 1990s.
[snipped]
(4)
"I don't spend too much of my day really thinking about it," says James Maynard, a mathematician at the University of Oxford.
AP writes:: No wonder James for you are a failed mathematician who cannot even admit the truth-- slant cut of cone is not a ellipse but a Oval. Maybe you are just blind in the eyes to fail to see the asymmetry of the cone and the symmetry of the cylinder. And no wonder you could never do a valid proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. I reckon your classrooms in calculus teaching are nothing but a torture chamber with your mindless Limit analysis hornswaggle. Jame, in my opinion you are not a mathematician but a failure of math.
2--- quoting Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia---
2--- end quoting Wikipedia---
pp
May 31, 2026, 8:36:50 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to have to go back to my history of the Riemann Hypothesis, for I did not solve it until 2016 with a disproof. One can easily read my book on the Riemann Hypothesis for free in my newsgroup listed below.
So, what happened was that when I first entered Usenet in 1993, I had given proofs of many outstanding unproven math conjectures, one of them being the Riemann Hypothesis. And so I was believing RH was a piece of true math in 1993 and offered solutions for a proof. Then came 2013 with the discovery that Reals were garbage and the true numbers of mathematics were the Decimal Grid Numbers. That caused me to go back and re-examine my RH analysis and proffered proof. Turns out my proof faded away quickly when the True Numbers of Mathematics are Decimal Grid numbers. There are no prime numbers in Decimal Grid Numbers. And then after 2013 came 2016 and the full realization that Riemann Hypothesis was pure raw garbage, full of error, and no wonder no progress ever made on it since Riemann in 1859 stated the idea.
And I am happy that Joseph Howlett is trying to write a simple explanation for what RH is, rather than have another convoluted math professor who can never state anything "simple and clear" because they never took Logic in school, no, for their minds are just a wrapped up, waddled ball of barb wire for a brain. At least, well, Joseph has a chance at simple and clear explanation.
But, before I post what Joseph explains is RH, let me offer a insight for Joseph Howlett and almost every math professor of today on clarity and simpleness of the RH. What I mean is give an analogy so that High School students can even understand. Throughout my life, I have used High School students as a measuring test for simple, clear true ideas. If they cannot understand it, then the professor or teacher has to go back to the drawing board.
You see, the whole entire problem of RH is a ill-defined concept that beguiles stupid mathematicians. It looks real and true and innocent that a Counting Number that is divisible by only itself and 1, is a true concept. But looks can be deceiving.
When you TAKE Logic you can come across a idea called a Set Completeness. Give me any two counting numbers and multiply them, and it returns another Counting Number. For example 3 x 8, or 9*10^9 x 8*10^-3 is another counting number. Any two counting numbers when multiplied produces another counting number.
But in RH, are the Counting Numbers Complete to Division??? Hell no, for immediately we have 3/1 is a counting number but 1/3 is a Rational number, not a Counting number. Counting Numbers are COMPLETE to addition and multiplication but not to division or subtraction.
So, any conjecture, any hypothesis over Counting Numbers with a Incomplete Set, is not mathematics at all but pseudoscience.
Try proving the eyes of a witch flying on a broomstick are black eyes. Silly: because witches do not exist. Primes in mathematics exist only in particular but not in general. Since primes as a set is Not Complete over Division.
The problem with RH is that primes is a fake concept and thus RH is a fake hypothesis, never to be proved.
So, I am thinking of an analogy to show the stupid faithful followers of RH, why they are so blithering stupid.
I am here in 31May2026, trying to dream up a analogy counterexample to show that when you dream up these concepts that have no concrete existence, that you end up with a RH type of impossible to prove--- because it is garbage in the first place.
I recall trying to dream up a Factorial on Rationals. Sounds admissible from the start but then the question becomes "did I get all the rationals between 0 and 1 or 1 and 3???
No, I need a better analogy.
Physics has an analogy for a false concept, the Centrifugal force versus Centripetal force. Maybe I should convert that phony concept to math to expose the phoniness of Primes.
Looking to see if Joseph Howlett has any physics experience--- yes it says Joseph is a astroparticle physicist. So, now, let us see if the fakery of the Centrifugal force is a analogy to the Fakery that are Prime numbers in mathematics.
Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 25th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
Let me post to my newsgroup to bring up this #25th book of science I published, making it easier on those looking for it.
Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 25th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
Preface: Old Math came up with a Riemann Hypothesis RH in 1859, a conjecture never proven true until AP solved it in 2016. The reason RH was never solved and can never be solved was that math never had the true numbers that compose mathematics until 2013 as the Decimal Grid Numbers, showing that Reals, and Complex were phony and fake numbers. But in addition to not having the true numbers of mathematics, Old Math never realized that the only valid functions in all of mathematics are the polynomials, hence the Zeta function in RH is also a phony and sham fakery. No wonder RH lay dormant for nearly 200 years.
Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis. There never exists a Riemann Hypothesis when the true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers.
--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------
1) Introduction and framework of this book.
2) My history behind the Riemann Hypothesis disproof.
3) By 2011, I realized the Zeta functions were never equal in the Riemann Hypothesis.
4) True numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, a discovery by me in 2013.
5) True Numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers and are discrete, not continuous for they have holes of empty space between one and the next number.
6) Old Math never well-defined Series equality, especially for Euler Zeta and Riemann Zeta.
7) My first disproof of Riemann Hypothesis as seen in 2016.
8) Subtraction Fallacy of Zetas.
9) Derbyshire book "Prime Obsession" 2003 pertinent to subtraction of infinite sum series.
10) By late 2023, I found a better explanation of the Subtraction Paradox with years of a calendar.
11) Was the Prime Number Theorem and Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, also fake conjectures and proofs?
12) Is there a Geometry disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis-- yes quite simple and easy!
13) Ongoing commentary and reflection back.
14) The Summary of Riemann Hypothesis and its Disproof.
15) Recent AI Overview publicity of AP's Riemann Hypothesis Proof.
Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis. There never exists a Riemann Hypothesis when the true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers.
--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------
1) Introduction and framework of this book.
2) My history behind the Riemann Hypothesis disproof.
3) By 2011, I realized the Zeta functions were never equal in the Riemann Hypothesis.
4) True numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, a discovery by me in 2013.
5) True Numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers and are discrete, not continuous for they have holes of empty space between one and the next number.
6) Old Math never well-defined Series equality, especially for Euler Zeta and Riemann Zeta.
7) My first disproof of Riemann Hypothesis as seen in 2016.
8) Subtraction Fallacy of Zetas.
9) Derbyshire book "Prime Obsession" 2003 pertinent to subtraction of infinite sum series.
10) By late 2023, I found a better explanation of the Subtraction Paradox with years of a calendar.
11) Was the Prime Number Theorem and Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, also fake conjectures and proofs?
12) Is there a Geometry disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis-- yes quite simple and easy!
13) Ongoing commentary and reflection back.
14) The Summary of Riemann Hypothesis and its Disproof.
15) Recent AI Overview publicity of AP's Riemann Hypothesis Proof.
May 31, 2026, 11:24:37 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now I vaguely remember I was looking for a analogy of a ill defined operator concept which is not complete to the Counting Numbers, and thus, no patterns appear such as primes and no formula is possible, and thus a RH type hypothesis over those "incomplete" numbers is doomed to failure because "prime concept" is phony. I remember the best I could do was talk about factorial over rationals, which would be impossible to set up over all Rationals, all incomplete and thus ill-defined.
I did have some success in showing that Subtraction, like Division over Counting numbers is Incomplete and thus ill-defined. Which can be seen in my 25th published book on Riemann Hypothesis.
So it looks as though I am going to have to define Completeness with respect to a set of numbers and functions and Consistency.
I remember way back in college with Galois Algebra, that Group, Ring, Field are defined on addition and multiplication, never subtraction or division. The plain blunt reason is that addition and multiplication form Complete Sets.
Definition of Completeness in mathematics and logic
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A set of numbers and a operator forms a complete set, if and only if every two numbers operated upon returns another number in the original given set. For example, addition on Counting Numbers is Complete because 5+7 or 11+100 return numbers which are also Counting Numbers and every Counting Number is at least represented by A + B. Multiplication is Complete on Counting Numbers for every Counting Number can be represented by an A x B.
The definition is the idea that there is full participation of every Counting Number that returns another Counting Number.
However, Division and Subtraction on Counting Numbers is Not Complete, for there are many A, and B counting numbers that when divided or subtracted deliver numbers not being a Counting Number. For example, 1/3 is a Rational number, not a Counting number and 1-3 is a negative number, a phony number and not a Counting number.
The reason Primes in Old Math have no formula, have no pattern, is because they are not a Complete set. Thus, they are ill-defined and junk math. No hypothesis is true on Primes because they are fictional.
Definition of Consistency in math and logic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know which of these two concepts is the more difficult. I think it is Completeness, for it fooled mathematicians over 2 to 3 thousand years now.
Consistency is where never arises the statement A and its negation of Not-A. Sometimes the A and not-A are not easily recognized. I remember my worst example of unrecognized Inconsistency was the time I had cancer-- Liposarcoma-- where my tumor was growing inside my body, growing bigger, yet when I went on the weighing scales I was losing weight. One would think the body plus tumor is growing bigger and so the weight gains not loses. A weight loss seems as though a contradiction and causing a Inconsistency. However, if you realize the tumor is a parasite and eating your blood which you excrete out in poop, that is the cause of weight loss, while the tumor is growing bigger. The cancer parasite is eating up your internal body and you pooping out the body's contents.
Completeness is where any two Counting numbers produces another Counting number. Consistency is where you never have a statement A then also Not-A.
So let me pull up this example of Incompleteness with subtraction. It deals with the fact of my writing science books and how many I published over time intervals of years.
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 24, 2023, 8:47:49 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Add to my 25th book of science-- Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis, for my version below is a different but abbreviated version of the Hotel Paradox and it is so easy to make this mistake in subtraction. The remedy below is that I needed to start with a nonpublishing year of 2018.
On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 6:57:45 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So here I am nearly into 1January 2024. I started publishing books in 2019, and as of now have 268 published books (actually 1 was denied publication).
So doing routine math subtraction that is 2023 - 2019 = 4. And 268 / 4 = 67 books per year, which is far more than 1 book per week.
On the other hand if we count the years we have 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 which is 5 years, not 4 years.
So where is this math paradox coming from. And could some theoretical math such as the Riemann Hypothesis have this paradox embodied, enshrined into it.
It appears math subtraction has a flaw not unlike the paradox of division by 0. And perhaps division by 0 is related to this flaw of subtraction.
As excellent of an example of the Subtraction Paradox from the Hotel story is. As the years passed by since publishing this book in March of 2019, my 25th published book of science, in the ensuing years I found an even easier story to tell of the Subtraction Paradox. Those of us in mathematics know of the division problem or paradox, that you cannot divide by zero or you tear up all of mathematics. And since subtraction is related to division, for division is simply "fast subtraction", while multiplication is fast addition. Since division has a paradox, that subtraction must have some form of paradox. And that paradox in subtraction is **where do we start to subtract?**.
As the Hotel story shows, the true subtraction starts with subtract 5 from 30, the bellman gives 1 dollar to each soldier, and pockets 2 dollars making 25+1+1+1+2 = 30. Whereas the incorrect accounting is subtract 3 from 30 is 27 and the bellman keeps 2 is 27+2 = 29.
In the ensuing years since publishing this book in 2019, I found an even easier subtraction story to tell. One day I was figuring out how many books I had published divided by how many years I had been writing those published books. I started in year 2019 writing books and publishing them and by year 2023, the end of 2023, I had published my 269th book of science. (A minor exception in that my 259th book was censored and not able to be published since it was about a resolution of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, censored and blocked from publication).
So, here is an easier and perhaps finer example of the Subtraction Paradox. If I subtract 2019 from 2023 I get 4, as in 4 years of publishing 269 books of science. Yet the true years are 5 years for we must include 2019 also.
I wanted to know this statistic as to see the rate of writing books and how much time elapsed. So 269/5 is 53.8 books per year, which is slightly more than 1 book written and published per week. That is an awful grueling schedule and pace.
But I recognized in my calculating, I remembered back to writing the Riemann Hypothesis disproof with its Hotel Paradox. I had found an easier story to tell of how subtraction can lead one astray.
For example, this year is now 2024. And suppose I started take vitamin D pills in 2016. How many years have I taken vitamin D pills? A novice would do 2024 subtract 2016 equals 8 years of taking vitamin D. A more circumspect person would count on his fingers 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and come up with the correct answer of 9 years.
Same goes for the Riemann Hypothesis, their subtraction of series is fakery and so their entire math is false. The concept of Prime Number when the Counting Numbers are involved is a Incomplete set over division, hence, no pattern, no formula and no Riemann Hypothesis.
Dec 24, 2023, 8:47:49 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Add to my 25th book of science-- Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis, for my version below is a different but abbreviated version of the Hotel Paradox and it is so easy to make this mistake in subtraction. The remedy below is that I needed to start with a nonpublishing year of 2018.
On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 6:57:45 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So here I am nearly into 1January 2024. I started publishing books in 2019, and as of now have 268 published books (actually 1 was denied publication).
So doing routine math subtraction that is 2023 - 2019 = 4. And 268 / 4 = 67 books per year, which is far more than 1 book per week.
On the other hand if we count the years we have 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 which is 5 years, not 4 years.
So where is this math paradox coming from. And could some theoretical math such as the Riemann Hypothesis have this paradox embodied, enshrined into it.
It appears math subtraction has a flaw not unlike the paradox of division by 0. And perhaps division by 0 is related to this flaw of subtraction.
As excellent of an example of the Subtraction Paradox from the Hotel story is. As the years passed by since publishing this book in March of 2019, my 25th published book of science, in the ensuing years I found an even easier story to tell of the Subtraction Paradox. Those of us in mathematics know of the division problem or paradox, that you cannot divide by zero or you tear up all of mathematics. And since subtraction is related to division, for division is simply "fast subtraction", while multiplication is fast addition. Since division has a paradox, that subtraction must have some form of paradox. And that paradox in subtraction is **where do we start to subtract?**.
As the Hotel story shows, the true subtraction starts with subtract 5 from 30, the bellman gives 1 dollar to each soldier, and pockets 2 dollars making 25+1+1+1+2 = 30. Whereas the incorrect accounting is subtract 3 from 30 is 27 and the bellman keeps 2 is 27+2 = 29.
In the ensuing years since publishing this book in 2019, I found an even easier subtraction story to tell. One day I was figuring out how many books I had published divided by how many years I had been writing those published books. I started in year 2019 writing books and publishing them and by year 2023, the end of 2023, I had published my 269th book of science. (A minor exception in that my 259th book was censored and not able to be published since it was about a resolution of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, censored and blocked from publication).
So, here is an easier and perhaps finer example of the Subtraction Paradox. If I subtract 2019 from 2023 I get 4, as in 4 years of publishing 269 books of science. Yet the true years are 5 years for we must include 2019 also.
I wanted to know this statistic as to see the rate of writing books and how much time elapsed. So 269/5 is 53.8 books per year, which is slightly more than 1 book written and published per week. That is an awful grueling schedule and pace.
But I recognized in my calculating, I remembered back to writing the Riemann Hypothesis disproof with its Hotel Paradox. I had found an easier story to tell of how subtraction can lead one astray.
For example, this year is now 2024. And suppose I started take vitamin D pills in 2016. How many years have I taken vitamin D pills? A novice would do 2024 subtract 2016 equals 8 years of taking vitamin D. A more circumspect person would count on his fingers 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and come up with the correct answer of 9 years.
Same goes for the Riemann Hypothesis, their subtraction of series is fakery and so their entire math is false. The concept of Prime Number when the Counting Numbers are involved is a Incomplete set over division, hence, no pattern, no formula and no Riemann Hypothesis.
AP, King of Science
Jun 1, 2026, 3:45:10 AM (22 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I do not know, how long it has been that AP has stopped proving Outstanding Unsolved Math Conjectures.
And perhaps this recent post on Scientific American's Riemann Hypothesis has put me, the King of Science in a mood to solve more of these problems that goonclod math professors like Terence Tao dreg up. For Terry Tao is so dumb in math, he still preaches the limit analysis for proof of FTC and still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse. And Steve Huffman's Reddit is proud to call Terence Tao a Lunatic. Steve, I would not go that far, you might hurt his feelings.
Steve Huffman lists science lunatics:
Reddit (symbol) r/math, 3 years ago Genius meets Lunatic: 1994 discussion between Terry Tao and Ludwig Plutonium
I remember Archimedes Plutonium and sci.math. He calculated the chromatic number of the plane: and it is 1 (color everything
..Is this crank perchance John Gabriel?
Univ Virginia math dept: Peter Abramenko, Julie Bergner, Mikhail Ershov, Jeffrey Holt, John Imbrie, Thomas Koberda, Slava Krushkal, Thomas Mark, Jennifer Morse, Ken Ono, Andrei Rapinchuk, Christian Reidys, Jim Rolf, Charles Dunki, Ira Herbst, James Howland, Craig Huneke, Thomas Kriete, Nicholas Kuhn, Irena Lasiecka, Barbara MacCluer, Kevin McCrimmon, Karen Parshall, Loren Pitt, Donald Ramirez, James Rovnyak, Leonard Scott, Lawrence Thomas, Roberto Triggiani, Harold Ward
Reddit (symbol) r/math, 3 years ago Genius meets Lunatic: 1994 discussion between Terry Tao and Ludwig Plutonium
I remember Archimedes Plutonium and sci.math. He calculated the chromatic number of the plane: and it is 1 (color everything
..Is this crank perchance John Gabriel?
Univ Virginia math dept: Peter Abramenko, Julie Bergner, Mikhail Ershov, Jeffrey Holt, John Imbrie, Thomas Koberda, Slava Krushkal, Thomas Mark, Jennifer Morse, Ken Ono, Andrei Rapinchuk, Christian Reidys, Jim Rolf, Charles Dunki, Ira Herbst, James Howland, Craig Huneke, Thomas Kriete, Nicholas Kuhn, Irena Lasiecka, Barbara MacCluer, Kevin McCrimmon, Karen Parshall, Loren Pitt, Donald Ramirez, James Rovnyak, Leonard Scott, Lawrence Thomas, Roberto Triggiani, Harold Ward
So, what I am looking for to warm me up for proving new unproven math conjectures are conjectures like the Riemann Hypothesis where the entities are ill defined, or vague definition, as the reason the conjecture is impossible to prove.
And I am discarding all conjectures that cannot be stated in simple clear a few paragraphs. I am not going to be bogged down in a string of remote definitions, such as the stupid Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer, or the Hodge conjecture, where you have to spend time in figuring out remote definitions.
So Popular Mechanics has a good list of unsolved problems, of which half of them I solved back in the 1990s, but Popular Mechanics and the rest of the math world has not yet caught up with me, and eventually they will.
But the last two out of 10 in the Popular Mechanics list is the question 9th problem of Pi + E is it Algebraic or is it Transcendental?????? Is the conjecture. Beautiful conjecture to explain and pretty easy for me to solve in 10 minutes.
As I have said so often in the past. A math conjecture and its proof should be aligned in the length of the Statement should approximately equal the length of the proof argument.
So in this Conjecture the Statement is no more than two paragraphs long, involving what it means to be algebraic or transcendental. Means, my proof is no more than two paragraphs long.
Then Popular Mechanics 10th unsolved conjecture is the question of whether the Euler-Mascheroni constant gamma is it Rational or Irrational.
Now, I like conjectures like these because I do not waste time in finding out what scores of remote definitions mean.
Proof of Pi+E = a Decimal Grid Number and all Decimal Grid Numbers are rational, hence Algebraic
Proof of Gamma is a rational number, for all Decimal Grid Numbers are rational.
What Math was missing in the last 126 years was the idea that Max Planck starts Quantum Mechanics in physics. Only mathematicians had just 1/100 of a marble brain to compete with physicists. In year 1900 Planck charts a course for physics with Quantum. Quantum means discrete. The Reals are not discrete but a continuum. The idiots of math never stood up and payed attention to what is going on in physics, no, they barreled ahead in their cesspool of continuum with their mindless Reals. Hardly any mathematician from 1900 to 2026 studied Logic to think straight to think clearly.
If you study logic, you may have the chance to understand that if you define Infinity versus finite, you are required to have a Borderline between them. So that once you reach the infinity borderline, all the numbers beyond are infinite numbers and no longer mathematics. So what is Pi at the infinity borderline? What is E at the infinity borderline? What is Gamma at the infinity borderline.
Huygens deserved huge credit for discovery of the Tractrix has infinite reach but finite area and we use the Tractrix against the Circle to find that Infinity Borderline is where Tractrix area catches up with circle area. It is 1*10^604 and so all numbers with no more than 604 digits to the right of the decimal point or 604 digits to the left of the decimal point are finite numbers.
Now we must include 1*10^1208 as the Algebraic Completeness borderline. Refering back to the Riemann Hypothesis as junk because Division and Subtraction are NOT Complete to those operators and Prime Numbers are thus junk.
Here is pi to 604 digits rightward of decimal point.
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000
You see, when you are in Math with the wrong numbers of math, thousands upon thousands of stupid conjectures that are impossible to solve and wastes the lifetime of many math professors, wastes their time in life, all because no-one in math studies Logic to think straight and clear.
That Pi + E are rational and thus Algebraic, not Transcendental and that Gamma is Rational because the TRUE NUMBERS OF MATHEMATICS are Decimal Grid Numbers.
No concept of PRIME occurs in Decimal Grid Numbers, yet you have millions of math professors waste the time of their life on such nonsense.
AP, King of Science
Jun 1, 2026, 3:57:41 AM (22 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Pi = 3.
1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 : 50
5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 : 100
8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 : 150
4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 : 200
4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 : 250
4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 : 300
7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 : 350
7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 : 400
3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 : 450
0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 : 500
9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 : 550
6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 : 600
0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 : 650
1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 : 700
e = 2.
7182818284 5904523536 0287471352 6624977572 4709369995 :50
9574966967 6277240766 3035354759 4571382178 5251664274 :100
2746639193 2003059921 8174135966 2904357290 0334295260 :150
5956307381 3232862794 3490763233 8298807531 9525101901 :200
1573834187 9307021540 8914993488 4167509244 7614606680 :250
8226480016 8477411853 7423454424 3710753907 7744992069 :300
5517027618 3860626133 1384583000 7520449338 2656029760 :350
6737113200 7093287091 2744374704 7230696977 2093101416 :400
9283681902 5515108657 4637721112 5238978442 5056953696 :450
7707854499 6996794686 4454905987 9316368892 3009879312 :500
7736178215 4249992295 7635148220 8269895193 6680331825 :550
2886939849 6465105820 9392398294 8879332036 2509443117 :600
3012381970 6841614039 7019837679 3206832823 7646480429 :650
5311802328 7825098194 5581530175 6717361332 0698112509 :700
96181881593041690
Jun 1, 2026, 4:03:25 AM (22 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Most math professors have a difficult time in grasping the idea that Riemann could be wrong in some of his math, especially the RH.
Just as many physicists have a difficult time in grasping the idea that Maxwell's Equations were wrong because his Gauss's law of no magnetic monopoles put his equations into the error zone. In fact, Maxwell, should have taken the Ohm's law, improved it to be a full law, instead of a "rule" for high voltage or high current it was wrong.
The way AP establishes the Laws of Electromagnetism is use a correct New Ohm's law and then all the other laws-- Faraday, Ampere, Coulomb come falling out naturally.
My point is --- many mathematicians worship as hero Riemann and thus they never can understand the hypothesis is garbage.
AP
Jun 1, 2026, 4:05:11 AM (22 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
It is sad that in this list of numbers digits of pi and E that telephone numbers across the world are highlighted in blue.
Google, is there a way for you to distinguish math numbers and telephone numbers; to filter out telephone numbers when posting large numbers?????????
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages