Geometric solution to the Riemann Hypothesis

[@in2infinitygeometry]

Hi everyone. Thanks for your comments. If this video seems unclear, that is because it was created for our website posts which explain our novel system of 'Geometric Maths'. As there has been some interest in the subject, we will endeavour to produce a more comprehensive explanation of the conceptual framework of this solution. For those who are interested, more details can be found on our website: in2infinity.com/theory/geometric-maths/ and in2infinity.com/solving-infinity/ and in2infinity.com/the-riemann-hypothesis-solution/

[@caiusmersa358]

I think your videos are very clear. It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about...

[@miroslavzidek9971]

I understand everything said in the video. For me personally, this video only confirms that in my description of the development spiral of life, where the movement of energies and information is controlled by the sequences of numbers that are present in my table of combinatorics of the distribution of prime numbers, and the beginning of everything begins, except for EM, at the point - 1 on the "y" axis the geometric proof of RH is obvious. Look at the Great Pyramid from above. There you will see that the edges going from the north /upper right side/ going to the south /lower left edge/ do not meet like half lines. This is due to the shift of 2 in the triples of the Pythagorean numbers that are connected to the prime numbers. Jerry Northern, whom I once encouraged with my explanation to complete an electric power generator, wrote to me some time ago that I had geometrically proved RH through the evolutionary spiral of life. Otherwise, the square root of 125 plus minus 0.5 is phì and Phì.

[@bartholomewhalliburton9854]

@@miroslavzidek9971 I'm so confused why you're using words like "life" and "movement" and "energies" and "electric power generator" when this video isn't on physics. It is on the Riemann Hypothesis. The Riemann hypothesis would still be sensible if nothing were to exist at all, because that's how mathematics operates. Is this a different Riemann Hypothesis? What informed you to the point where you could understand this? No professional mathematician understands what this guy is talking about.

[@SultanLaxeby]

Bravo. This is the first proof of RH I have seen that fails even to mention the Riemann zeta function at all.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

You are right, this is not really a presentation of the mathematical proof, moreover, a rough description of the solution. Would you like us to produce a video that goes into all the details?

[@SultanLaxeby]

@@in2infinitygeometry Yes, that would be interesting. In particular whether the method used has any implications for other Dirichlet series and shed perhaps some light on a possible proof of the Generalized RH for L-functions.

[@ZygonesBzygones]

Truly amazing.

[@justsomeboyprobablydressed9579]

Wow! That's the first time I've seen someone prove a mathematical statement without referring to the statement.

[@Antediluvian137]

This Rye Man Hypothesis sounds like it's a big deal

[@in2infinitygeometry]

For some people. However, we have a wide range of interesting mathematical tools, which, as far as we are aware, have not been recognised in the literature.

[@ZygonesBzygones]

It is usually pronounced ree mawhn

[@frax5051]

​@@in2infinitygeometrythat's pretty much because they're bullshit

[@daxramdac7194]

Not even close to a decent fake proof. You just talked about some vague notions of infinity, some geometric function thing, and numbers being compressed, or wrapping around themselves, whatever that means. You can't just say stuff and draw circles on a graph. Whatever these concepts you're introducing are and/or mean, you have to properly define them, then go to demonstrate MATHEMATICALLY what number compression is and how it relates to the critical strip, and why it proves/disproves the Riemann hypothesis, demonstrating clearly that if RH were true/false, then these principles would be violated, or that these other things would therefore be true/false which cannot possibly be the case because of the following reasons.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

We agree. Such an interesting problem deserves a cleaner and more detailed explanation. This video is just a rough over view to demonstrate the concept. We do have a series which covers some of the foundational concepts of a particular presentation of number, which has offered us an insight into the geometric process that allow for the transformation of the complex plane. We will produce a more detailed video shortly. In the meantime, we suggest that the hypothesis is TRUE, and that all non-trivial zeros will be found on the 0.5 mark of the critical strip.

[@Alexander-oh8ry]

@@in2infinitygeometry Why do you then create this pile of shit of a video?

[@miroslavzidek9971]

Everything is true, but it was not initially explained why the basic geometry of development starts from -1. If there is a zero point, then only for electromagnetism. Infinity is secured through sequences that work on the half-lines of life's developmental spiral.

[@TGMResearch]

Lack of rigor should not be mistaken for intuition.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

I will try to produce a more rigorous in the next set of videos

[@kennethvalbjoern]

🤣

[@evelincapatina7532]

If you can't convince them - confuse them

[@in2infinitygeometry]

Sorry if the video left you confused. We are not really presenting the full details of the solution in this video, just a simple overview. We could explain the solution in more detail if that is of interest.

[@evelincapatina7532]

@@in2infinitygeometry Spare your details. The thing that is actually amazing me, is that you guys have the ressources to make a nice-looking video, found a very good editor, a person who's respectfully replying in the comments (might be the editor as well) when the content of the video is straight up bullshitting people. I mean who pays for this stuff?

[@in2infinitygeometry]

@@evelincapatina7532 I don't think you have expressed your opinion very clearly, If you wish to comment perhaps you could share your comprehension with us

[@ArbitraryCodeExecution]

@@evelincapatina7532 but, but the compression of the aleph 0.5 of the density of the rotation function across the critical strip trivially proves the rye-man hypothesis, like you can see it in the sqrt(2) (thats a proof of the new geometric 4d math with the cardinality set theory bypass)

[@gtziavelis]

critical strip is between 0 and 1, not between 0 and 1/2. the vertical axis in complex numbers cannot be labeled "i". the golden ratio isn't related to 1.25 in the way presented or implied. these are but a few of the absolutely absurd errors in your un-helpful video.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

All non trivial zeros appear on the 0.5 mark, let’s say that is what we are confirming. The hypothesis is true. Labelling the vertical axis imaginary, and the horizontal axis real for respective number types is acceptable. The golden ratio is expressed as √1.25±0.5.

[@gtziavelis]

@@in2infinitygeometry the golden ratio is expressed as (1+√5)/2 which is about 1.61803. I think you repeated that it's 0.75 and 1.75, which no mathematician on the planet recognizes.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

@@gtziavelis Actually the value we point to is √1.25 ±0.5 or as we prefer √1.25 ±√0.5 which shows how it is composed of two square root numbers.

[@Alexander-oh8ry]

@@in2infinitygeometry Moron

[@miroslavzidek9971]

The golden section works on half-lines of light - photon. Infinite quantum difference 5 and infinite difference 2 in triplets of Pythagorean numbers with a shift are at work here. If you put the values ​​5 and 2 into the quadratic equation, you will get phí and Phi when solving it.

[@Antediluvian137]

the golden ratio is not the square root of 1.25 😭you can't just say the density of infinite collapses to the critical line by invoking the golden ratio when it's not even present and then leave it at that. show us with a function what you mean. how is the golden ratio meant to appear from that triangle. and how can you say "aleph 0.5" without explaining what on earth that means!

[@in2infinitygeometry]

The golden ratio is expressed as √1.25±0.5. We should make a video that explains how the number plane collapses through the geometric constants, so that the angles are preserved in analytic continuation. The concept of Aleph 0.5 is explained in our video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/o5TKiWeed6eCq7s

[@Antediluvian137]

@@in2infinitygeometry thanks for the reply. I commented because I was genuinely curious how the golden ratio was meant to be related there. I missed the 0.5 factor. That does clarify it a little. I can't really tell how the triangular diagram is derived. It's an interesting find, so I think you're on to something. It feels like somewhat of a redefinition to introduce aleph 0.5 like that ... If you can define aleph 0.5 in that way, you'd probably need some rigorous definition to show what the pattern is for aleph p/q. And then think about what happens at aleph 1 which transitions us from countable to uncountable. Just spitballing here. The 'crazy' assertions are enough to get me curious 😄

[@studiooriginals]

@@in2infinitygeometryliteral word salad. Your arguments are based on feeling intuition. You need to build coherent, syllogistic arguments that actually demonstrate conclusive truth.

[@miroslavzidek9971]

(-1)^2 + 0,5^2= 1,25 Druhá odmocnina z 1,25 = 1,118033988 = √5/2 1,118033988 ±0,5 = 0,618033988, alebo 1,618033988 Cos 144° = -0,80901699437 -1/ cos 144° = 1,236067978 1,236067978/2 = phí

[@MagruderSpoots]

A whole bunch of words that don't mean anything when put together the way you did.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

Yes, There are a few new terminologies in the video for sure. I guess we are assuming that you have either read our book, or website posts on the subject.

[@patrickt.2136]

Why is this on the internets?!

[@in2infinitygeometry]

It's part of a video series that reveals the concept of geometric maths and its implications

[@stevel9678]

It's the ham on rye man hypothesis.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

The los(t) angles

[@xinpingdonohoe3978]

I'm pretty sure this is satire. I know unconventional or controversial opinions can be correct, but this is not an opinion. It's just the right sounding words glued together with confusion. Of course, it might be that this guy is an advanced AI. They too have a tendancy to throw the good sounding words at you and see what happens, as is the nature of such linear regression.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

Thanks. We would like to explain more. Please verse yourself with the axioms of geometric maths. It will help.

[@miroslavzidek9971]

The premise in the video is true. The essence of understanding is that everything starts at the initial point - 1. The first part of the development spiral, which is linear, is described here. The movement of energy and information from the linear part to the circular part passes through the triplets of Pythagorean numbers with displacement, behind which the duality of wave and particle is hidden. By combining two interconnected triplets, an invisible geometry of prisms within prisms is created. These refract white light into a spectrum of colors when passing from a linear part to a circular part.

[@Chalisque]

So take those ideas you are sketching, and try to make something rigorous.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

Sure, stay tuned for more video updates.

[@theforeskinsnatcher373]

just a tip for future videos, please leave out the music, its a bit distracting

[@in2infinitygeometry]

Thanks I will pass that on.

[@gerbenkoopman5312]

"I won't explain how it relates to primes ... because I'm not quite sure what the word means..."

[@in2infinitygeometry]

Primes. It's about folding the unit number. We have a post on reciprocal primes. Hope that helps.

[@chonpincher]

It's the Riemann hypothesis, not the “Reimann” hypothesis. The first syllable is pronounced like *ream*, not *rhyme*.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

Thanks I will try to improve my annunciation in future videos.

[@RSLT]

An intriguing approach, demonstrating a truly out-of-the-box way of thinking( Novel). Good luck! Liked and subscribed! Hope to see more on this.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

Due to the enthusiastic responses, both positive and negative, we will endeavour to produce a more detailed video series shortly, that will explain this solution in much greater detail. Stay tuned

[@ArbitraryCodeExecution]

its a whole bunch of bs

[@GrifGrey]

golden ratio goes hard

[@陳嘉傑-g8l]

Ramen hypothesis🤤🤤🤤🍥🍜🍜🍜🍜

[@AHXIOMLaEscueladelaimaginacion]

Hi again. There a fundamental theorem, that, I belive, has not be "obaerved" in "Trasitional" Phi=(1+√5)/2. Was solved or founded in 2019, and is about Rectangular Triangles. In my IG feed and in the AHXIOM Semiotic Geometry Model © is shown in a "Folding Unfoling" Oeigami like path, after the "Traditional" pithagorean aproach, as in traditional sacred geometry aproach as in Drunvalo M. thesys. There is another holofractal aproach, that shows that Standard Sacred Geometry is a particular "way", as Newton's laws likes a particular Einstenian way to/dor slow velocities (change.s) value.s. Congratulations and... Regards!

[@in2infinitygeometry]

Thank you we also enjoy the mathematical equation root 1.25 plus/minus root 0.25. Thank you

[@adonis_316]

good stuff however , this was a very shallow overview(i understand you have a website) , not to mention you somewhat slurred your speech if you turn the background music down and read off a script youll have a much better video on your hands

[@in2infinitygeometry]

Thanks, and you are quite correct, this was just a very brief overview of the concept. We have a playlist which explains our novel mathematical system here. kzbin.info/aero/PLr14erZYdYLTOpzWed45u_QdfFDRAgfwt More details can be found on our website in2infinity.com/theory/geometric-maths/

[@HoSza1]

All the jealous people who won't win $1M:

[@in2infinitygeometry]

The value of a new mathematical concept is much greater than $1M

[@HoSza1]

@@in2infinitygeometry Indeed. Did my aim miss? RH is one of the millenium problems, each of their solutions are to be rewarded that sum.

[@kennethvalbjoern]

This has nothing to do with real math. I can see you have made other bs videos on math an physics. Delete them all so that you don't confuse people who are not mathematicians.

[@miroslavzidek9971]

It is necessary to understand that creative thought called "metaphysics" is necessary to establish a solution to a problem in a given field. You can already see in the name that instead of mathematics there is physics. To clarify: The basis of mathematics arises from the understanding of the primary point of our existence, which is - 1. You need to look at Euler's equation. It is simply expressed there. And before physics and mathematics there is one more thing. It is the evolving geometry of space, which is created by numerical values ​​from the combinatorics method of the distribution of prime numbers. These numbers guide the movement of energies in space, and by combining them, the aforementioned geometry is created. It is known that Riemann himself said that the one who discovers how the prime numbers in the series of natural numbers are distributed can prove his hypothesis.

[@bdi7518]

lol lol lol lol

[@rserserserse]

Rubbish.

[@in2infinitygeometry]

If you would like a more detailed answer, you will need to explain your position in greater detail

[@ArbitraryCodeExecution]

@@in2infinitygeometry no I think the one here who has to explain in greater detail is you (in2infinity)