If I could get Clay to reformulate its statement of what RH is, then I think clearly that would something fitting
>something useful and for solutions you know will earn acceptance in the mathematical community.
How could Clay restate the problem with an exclusion of the neighborhood of infinity without first at least implicitly acknowledging that I had a real result worthy of being published in a professional journal? Or do you think I could do groundbreaking work that forces Clay to change their definition of the problem so they don't have to admit that I solved it, but then also have that work still be so shit tier that it's not even worthy of appearing in the world's least reputable math journal? IMO, if Clay starts talking about what I did, then that means I did something very good, worthy of being published.
If CMI had to reformulate their problem to not to have to give me the money, then it would be widely accepted that I did the most important work on RH in over 100 years and it would also be a fact that I solved RH as the problem was posed before CMI changed the definition.
I hope they don't change the definition of the problem and that they gib me all of dat, but even if they just reformulate the problem to exclude the special case I showed, then that ought to get me a decent job, and that would be a great outcome for me.
I have looked at the Wikipedia for the surreals. They are interesting but I do not care that they are number fields because my research is related to numbers rather than number fields.
SHORT: >Quick Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0236
MEDIUM: Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
>https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030
LONG: Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237 (PDF)
>https://ibb [doot] co/album/jNypiv (JPG)
>something useful and for solutions you know will earn acceptance in the mathematical community.
How could Clay restate the problem with an exclusion of the neighborhood of infinity without first at least implicitly acknowledging that I had a real result worthy of being published in a professional journal? Or do you think I could do groundbreaking work that forces Clay to change their definition of the problem so they don't have to admit that I solved it, but then also have that work still be so shit tier that it's not even worthy of appearing in the world's least reputable math journal? IMO, if Clay starts talking about what I did, then that means I did something very good, worthy of being published.
If CMI had to reformulate their problem to not to have to give me the money, then it would be widely accepted that I did the most important work on RH in over 100 years and it would also be a fact that I solved RH as the problem was posed before CMI changed the definition.
I hope they don't change the definition of the problem and that they gib me all of dat, but even if they just reformulate the problem to exclude the special case I showed, then that ought to get me a decent job, and that would be a great outcome for me.
I have looked at the Wikipedia for the surreals. They are interesting but I do not care that they are number fields because my research is related to numbers rather than number fields.
SHORT: >Quick Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0236
MEDIUM: Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
>https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030
LONG: Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
>https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237 (PDF)
>https://ibb [doot] co/album/jNypiv (JPG)
