>>12513564Just saying
>consider the natural number n which is 0 if RH is false and 1 if RH is trueis not actually well-defined. Normies would not agree that it's well-defined.
However, real numbers allow you to do infinitist schizo math and make it so it's as well-defined as any other "well-defined" real number given by a series or an algorithm, e.g. pi or e.
You can give an algorithm which defines a rational Cauchy sequence which converges to 1 if RH is true and 0 if RH is false, which translates to it being uniquely defined by an arithmetic statement in set theory, just like pi and e, and you can prove the convergence property above, so that you can prove it's a natural number in {0,1}. And that's your answer to RH. It's as explicit as the number pi.
Such is the wonderful world of infinitist schizo math.
Either you accept it, or you concede that pi, e and the whole real number system is nonsense and not well-defined.
