The Riemann Hypothesis

[Pro]

All we need to do is to understand numbers, and therefore prime numbers also, from their very beginning. Their absolute fundamental and most simple forms need to be understood first. We cannot hope to truthfully understand RH without a good grounding in basic number theory first.

This is where Pro theory comes into play. We know that the theory suggests three simultaneously possible potentials within all things/everything. Now without getting too far off topic here if we accept this changing potentials argument or at least apply it to our number studies some interesting conclusions arise. Let me explain.

Riemann was expecting a singular answer that didn't change, he wanted a definite yes or no answer to his original problem. This has been attempted ever since his paper was published but as yet nobody has been able to prove this singularly. This is the important bit, the singularity. It's this single structure that we're looking for here but in reality we have three potentials for everything, from maths to physics, to algebra, to the meaning of life to quantum physics. We need only note the common structure of electrons, protons and neutrons to see this at its most fundamental level.

I'm not going into a rambling diatribe on Pro theory, opposites etc here but suffice it to say that this is the way all things work. So numbers must surely follow this three pronged pattern of formation, named commonly by me as negative, positive and neutral for want of a better description.

Now we know that all things have both opposite potentials we can clearly see that numbers are repeating amounts. All numbers can run in the positive (forward) sense or in the negative (opposite or backward) sense. Numbers work both ways, this is why we have positive temperature scales for heat and negative (minus) measurements for cold temperatures.

Translated into numbers we see that numbers should follow some sort of three pronged pattern somehow. So if we look at numbers we have the commodities of 1 (singular) and the opposite to 1 (not 1 or more than 1) and we also have a third seemingly unimportant option of 0 (zero). Zero seems unimportant because it is neutral, it's neither completely 1 nor completely the opposite to 1, it's in-between the two opposites, in just the same way that the middle is the point between left and right.

No matter how large we make any given set of numbers it still comprises of these three repeating amounts or potentials. No matter how large any number is, it still debatably has both opposite and neutral potentials within it. Numbers work in the same way that all other things within the universe do, in three ways.

Now we look at primes. What I've just explained implies that primes must also possess an opposite and neutral potential. When we think about it we see that there is indeed an opposite to the primes and that the primes also contain the neutral quality of zero. The position of zero within numbers studied or visualised in sequence becomes particularly important when we re-examine the Riemann hypothesis armed with this idea.

Continued below...

[Pro]

So we're looking for a neutral potential within the primes and specifically within the Riemann hypothesis. Why are we looking for neutrality? The reason is because zeros are neutral and so is real part 1 half.

If we look at the following photographs we can clearly see that the numbers converge at the point exactly between real part 1 and real part nothing. For the sake of clarity I'm referring to the middle of the crossed axes. The absolute centre of the RH as defined here:









And this is why I'm constantly referring to the neutrality exhibited by Riemann's idea, all the RH does is define neutrality within prime numbers simply speaking. I would ask you to note the importance of what I'm saying here as this is the key to not only visualising the RH but also to proving it.

Back to Pro theory then. My theory suggests that everything, whether number, flesh and blood, atom, tree or force has three potentials at all times no matter what. Armed with this knowledge and also knowing that RH is predicting a neutral pattern of formation within the primes we can begin to look at solving the problem.

[Pro]

So in my opinion all we have to do to solve RH is realise that there are three potentials within all numbers including the primes and act accordingly. If we can realise that numbers repeat themselves infinitely then we're on track I feel.

All numbers start with these three amounts and end with these three amounts. Zero is neutral and so is real point one half and so this is the answer to RH. If we wanted to say definitely whether or not, or rather how likely it is, that RH is true then all we need to do is explore how likely neutrality is in this form.

Zero always has a neutral potential in theory and if the critical line of non-trivial zeros is both comprised of zeros and also in the neutral point between 1 and not 1 then we can reasonably suggest that RH is true.

This has been demonstrated by me in terms of numbers repeating themselves and also by me with the images I posted above showing the visual representation of RH. It all add up to neutral, middle, in between or whatever you wish to name it as but the result is the same no matter how large or small the prime.

Understanding the primes as repeating sets of three potentials is a bit like building a road so large that it defies observation. You can build a road of any size but the fact remains that you can still drive on either the left, right or middle of the road. Numbers in all their forms are the same in principle.

This is why I call Pro theory a theory of everything and also why I use the same kind of explanation for all these problems. This simple opposites and neutral idea is not only the answer to RH it is the answer to everything

[donaldjeo12]

FLORENCE, Colorado (AFJ) -- American mathematician Theodore Kaczynski,
who specializes in boundary functions, geometric function theory, and
killing people, won the Clay Math Foundation's $1 million prize for
disproving the Riemann hypothesis.

The Riemann hypothesis involves the location of the complex zeros of
the Riemann zeta function. While some mathematicians tried to prove
it, others used powerful computers to search for counterexamples.
Over a trillion zeros had been looked at, but Kaczynski noticed
that they all had positive imaginary values. He started looking
at negative imaginary values, and almost immediately found a
counterexample, a complex zero that wasn't on the critical line.

The Clay Math Foundation confirmed that he will be collecting the
$1 million prize.

Kaczynski said that he had little use for money, and will be donating
the full proceeds to his favorite charity, a foundation that teaches
underprivileged youngsters how to build letterbombs.

Kaczynski had previously won the Clay Math award for other of their
seven millennium math problems: Finding a closed-form solution to
the Navier-Stokes Equations. These equations are extremely useful
for describing the flow of air or water around airplanes, ships,
submarines, missiles, and, most importantly to Kaczynski, bombs.

He had also attempted to also win the RSA Challenge, which consists of
factoring a large composite number that is the product of two prime
factors. However, he was only able to find one of the two prime
factors, so he did not win that prize.

His future plans include proving the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer
conjecture, solving P = NP, and digging an escape tunnel with a
stolen spoon.

[Pro]

Keith F. Lynch - 01 Apr 2006 20:27 GMT

April fool joke from what I gather.