Gone are the days when these threads could garner five fools to let make them look stupid.

Stupid criticisms:
1) Definitions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 comprise a circle because the range of the Euclidean metric could be taken as R instead of N or Q, and despite the fact that the line being equipped with "a function" does not depend on the function's range, be it R, Q, N, or any other thing.
2) The neighborhood of infinity is not allowed by the field axioms which did not exist until long after Hilbert's 1899 paper.
3) The neighborhood of infinity is not allowed by the 1872 Dedekind cut and Cauchy definitions which somehow constrain Riemann's 1859 hypothesis.
4) Although algebra is called the study of mathematical symbols and the rules for manipulating them, infinity hat is "magic," not mundane, and therefore it is not allowed.
5) The Archimedes property of real numbers is not what Euclid said it is. It is what Rudin says it is.
6) By the axiom that every real number is less than some natural number, every real number is less than some natural and, therefore. alternative axiomatic schemes are not admissible.
7) Although all the sentences in the paper contain the formal subject-predicate construction, the sentences are actually incomprehensible gibberish.
8) Although Clay explicitly rules out the trivial zeros at the negative integers, zeros which everyone knows are out of scope, they also ruled out the zeros in the neighborhood of infinity but they just didn't do it explicitly like they did with the negative even integers.

Who will add to the list? Anything I forgot?