Re: proof of the Riemann hypothesis ?
From: Christian Graf (donotreplyhere_at_gmx.net)
Date: 06/01/04
- Next message: Drew: "Foundations textbooks"
- Previous message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: The Meaning of Abstract"
- In reply to: temp3600: "proof of the Riemann hypothesis ?"
- Next in thread: Phil Carmody: "Re: proof of the Riemann hypothesis ?"
- Reply: Phil Carmody: "Re: proof of the Riemann hypothesis ?"
- Reply: Joseph Hertzlinger: "Re: proof of the Riemann hypothesis ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 23:52:48 +0200
temp3600 wrote:
> I stumbled upon this paper yesterday :
> http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0405531
>
> Anyone heard of it ?
On page 2 he says:
(c_1 - r_1) * ... * (c_n - r_n) = (c_1 - 1) * ... * (c_n -1)
implies
r_1 = ... = r_n = 1
for complex c_i != 0 and real r_i != 0.
Therefore I conclude:
(2-4)*(3-4) = (2-1)*(3-1)
implies
1=4
In an other paper, Ferreira has proven the denumerability of the real
numbers. That might indeed be correct if 4 = 1 in his theory.
Christian
- Next message: Drew: "Foundations textbooks"
- Previous message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: The Meaning of Abstract"
- In reply to: temp3600: "proof of the Riemann hypothesis ?"
- Next in thread: Phil Carmody: "Re: proof of the Riemann hypothesis ?"
- Reply: Phil Carmody: "Re: proof of the Riemann hypothesis ?"
- Reply: Joseph Hertzlinger: "Re: proof of the Riemann hypothesis ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
