>>12089553>clearly not meant to involve that stuff.Pic related comes from Clay's definition of RH:
>Problems of the Millennium: the Riemann Hypothesis>https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/official_problem_description.pdfThe problem clearly isn't about the negative even integers, and yet they explicitly exclude them in the statement of the problem. If the neighborhood of infinity was an idea that any mathematician has toyed with, and if it is not in scope for RH, then why did they make an explicit statement excluding the negative even integers but not the numbers that every mathematician has toyed with? Please riddle me that, Different Poster.
Here is were I get ~REALLY~ retarded: even if the sum total value of my work is to add a corner case which Clay's "rigorous" statement of the problem neglects to mention, one which forces a clarification, then my result is important enough to appear in the Annals of Mathematics and it is not the trash 30 journals, arXiv, and a dozen trolls have all said it was.
Furthermore, I totally dispute your idea that the neighborhood of infinity is out of scope. The scope relates to the distributions of primes "p", pic related, and numbers of the form (INFHAT-p) have the EXACT same distribution as the regular primes but now we have new arithmetic tools
>Fractional Distance (Section 5) >https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237for analyzing such numbers. Overall, I think your claim "clearly not meant to involve that stuff" is stupid. RH was not "meant" to involve any new technique which might make the problem more plainly tractable, and ultimately the tractability is the only thing that matters. I think my solution says everything about primes that RH is expected to say. Even if it only shows a case that needs to be excluded from the formal statement of the problem, then my result belongs in the Annals.
