>>11566573I'm not mad. I fully anticipated the "nuh uh it doesn't converge" argument. That's why the first line says I take analytic continuation for granted.
Let's make this perfectly. The riemann hypothesis and zeta function. Riemann creates a function that has all these very interesting properties that require the function. To be zero where it actually diverges. Riemanns answer to that is he analytically continued his sum.
If Riemann can do that then so can i. This is probably why no proof is accepted snyway. Proof are being held to a higher standard than the hypothesis itself. Let's explore
You don't take the analytic continuation pill: ok fine. My feelings aren't hurt. My proof is just no sense, but so is the meaningfulness of the riemann hypothesis, since it's divergent
You swallow the analytic continuation pill. Ok, fine. Still I don't really care, but then the zeta function means something very profound for prime numbers, and my proof is legitimate, since it takes advantage of those properties
