Theory Of Everything - On The Riemann Hypothesis

[idontcaresocry]

horrible video..

[twarks144]

google Doe's Account, its mindblowing.

[ALYSHEBANDTHEBID]

I think everyone is forgetting what is the point here,...By far I think the Riemen Hypothesis is a very deep problem, full wonders and mysteries,..the prime hold alot of keys to the gate of final frontiers....

[gscotm55]

I am hard of hearing and I wish you would enunciate. I am not trying to be rude ( though appearances may decieve) I just cannot hear what you are saying and I really am interested. I am reading A Beautiful Mind. I would like to hear what you have to say.

Stay well, strong, curious, aware and inspired.

[baconistyte]

For whats its worth i've got an I.Q. of 160 and am considered to be what most people believe to be a genius or gifted, but all that explains is the utter idosyncracy behind boastful cocky people in corolation though, chris langan is said to have a 220 okay, I highly doubt a bar tender has the equanimity to exspress a relevant opinion, he's a moron as dim-witted as they come lmao, so ask yourself what does it really mean to encapsollate knowledge when you cant even give an unbiast opinion

[Klutch3342]

People might believe your IQ if you don't spell encapsulate or unbiased or correlation wrong.

[baconistyte]

what kind of question is that, what's your I.Q. funny how people ask the same tedious question, there are people out there, who base there lives on what a test can prove to you or what kind of score you can get the tests out there presume you to fail and take away potential for authentic creativity lol

[urbano277]

Whats your I.Q?

[baconistyte]

@urbano277

MORON

[urbano277]

When i asked for his i.q score I wasnt hiphoteractly speaking of knowledge but more of his unstatic way of speking.

thats why it was funny to hear him talk and i asked his i.q for fun.

the time you spent replying me was a MORON ideia cuz instead of losing time typing stupid things go hang out with your friends, if you have one.

Have a nice day

[RelativityGuru]

Protheory, how are you able to write and type clearly if you're dyslexic?

[ArcaneInquisitor]

mumble mumble mumble. I tried my hardest to listen but still hardly got half of what you said.

Speak clearly!

[williamthegirl]

Post 1

A couple of points:

1. You have not actually stated the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) here. RH is a statement in (complex) analysis and a priori has nothing whatsoever to do with prime numbers. The fact that there is any connection with prime numbers is itself a highly non-trivial fact.

(continued in next post)

[williamthegirl]

Post 2

I could accept that you may not present the full statement as it's rather complicated (although anyone who knows enough about to care about/understand a proof would probably understand, and also probably doesn't need to be told what a prime number is), but as it stands, what you said about "critical lines" and "zeros" is, without any further background, technical and liable to confuse most people watching your video (then again, perhaps that was your intention, as I shall get to in the..

[williamthegirl]

next few points).

2. I have watched your original video on "pro-theory", as well as read some bits of your website. In both of these sources, and in this video, you utterly fail to properly define it as a (scientific? mathematical? philosophical?) theory. From what I can tell, your essential point is that no question has a definite answer.

[williamthegirl]

Post 4 Firstly, making a theory saying as much is inherently self-contradictory (think "the liar paradox"). Secondly, it fails to explain anything (let alone everything) as all questions are given the same "answer" - namely, that there is none. Thirdly, at least in the case of mathematics, this is demonstrably false. This is because we have the concept of a proof (by which I mean a proper proof, not what you have done here). I'm going to assume that you have at least some experience with...

[williamthegirl]

Post 5

real proofs (if not, I'm afraid to don't have the intellectual authority to be attempting to prove, let alone convince others you have proved, a statement so complicated as RH). I'm talking about things like Euclid's proof that there are infinitely many prime numbers (to give a fairly simple example). This establishes unambiguously that the list of primes never ends. There is no talk of "neutral" answers here - Euclid's theorem is true, end of discussion. It is a proof of this nature...

[williamthegirl]

Post 6

..that mathematicians are looking for in order to establish RH (although it will undoubtedly be longer and more complicated), rather than some vague pseudo-philosophical waffling about no questions having a definite answer.

3. I suppose it is just about possible that you have read (and are seriously misinterpreting) the works of Godel and his followers. If so, please realise that the conclusion of his work is not that al (or even any) questions have answers which are neither true nor...

[williamthegirl]

Post 7

false, but rather the much more technical statement that "within any (sufficiently strong) axiomatic system, there exists a (well-formed) statement which is not a theorem, and whose negation is not a theorem". While the result (and those following it) is very interesting and deep, it is far from what you seem to be claiming.

[williamthegirl]

Post 8

4. Even if you move away from the logical austerity of mathematics to the (arguably safer) domain of science, you are still far from safe. Science requires all theories to do several things which yours fails to do, including being unambiguously stated and making clear, testable (ie, falsifiable) statements about the world. What does your theory predict? I fail to see how to apply the concept of a "neutral" answer to, for example, predict the motion of a planet in orbit...

[williamthegirl]

Post 9

..or the results of a complicated gene splicing procedure, let alone underpin the development of technologies ranging from the microchip to a nuclear reactor. These are a small sampling of the achievements of science (and technology), and it has done it through a mixture of individual creativity and ingenuity, and the bedrock of testable (and tested) hypotheses. Since your theory does not predict anything, it doesn't explain anything either.

[williamthegirl]

Post 10

5. I hope I have convinced you that, at the very least, you need to work on expressing your ideas in a much more coherent fashion in order for people to take you seriously, to distinguish you from "new-age quacks". As it stands, using many undefined terms almost smacks of deliberate obfuscation, the very opposite of scientific (and mathematical) endeavour.

If you can seriously respond to any of these objections, please get back to me. "Neutralising" any of my objections doesn't count.

[protheory]

Ok, calmed down a little now, sorry I'm being rude here. I'm just a little frustrated at having the same responses all the time from people with no videos. I'm still writing my response nut just wanted to keep things intellectual rather than personal from my end.

[protheory]

I take your point about being taken seriously but it doesn't really bother me too much to be honest. Neutralising you doesn't count eh? Hahaha, I wouldn't try to neutralise you as this is again singular, I'd neutralise you but also include opposite potentials in my argument, just for the sake of my own version of logic...

[Arycke]

I am taking a course in number theory and formal proofs, and we looked at some of the CMI millenium problems, and watched some lectures from Terence Tao about primes. I understand completely where you are coming from, his theory does not predict any valid result, therefore it does not explain anything, and the idea of neutrality in terms of the RH is highly ambiguous on its own.

[protheory]

I can see where you're coming from but a TOE is about a bit of everything, not a 'how to do' everything. It makes us aware that all things behave in three ways in theory and anyway it's a theory, I've never stated it as a fact, mainly because this is a singular condition. It's a fact, not a fact and it's neutral simultaneously...

[protheory]

As I've previously stated, I'm well aware what science expects and demands but does this mean that science is correct? I've written a theory that says three things SIMULTANEOUSLY so how do you expect me to concede that it's ambiguous when it's also the opposite and neutral all at once? The motion of a planet in orbit is relative and also subject to three possibilities...

[protheory]

Just because I'm self-taught and confident of my ideas doesn't mean I'm wrong. If you'd read my theory you would know that I'm wrong, right and neutral simultaneously...

[protheory]

I'm well aware of what mathematics and physics expects but for now I'm doing it my way. For what it's worth I've never read a single word of Godel. Singular (unambiguous) 'proofs' existed in the absence of Pro theory as in my opinion we didn't know that there are three potentials within everything. Try and 'prove' this unambiguously if you like...

[protheory]

Who are you to say I have no intellectual authority? And what does it matter? It's my theory, my video, my life. Euclid's proof might seem unambiguous but my theory says it is unambiguous, ambiguous and neutral therefore not only is it the end of the discussion it's also the beginning and neutral.

[protheory]

I know the liar paradox. The old tactic, trying to force constraints onto me. The "answer" you talk of is one of three, I give three answer(S) to everything simultaneously not one. Proof is a singularity (as such) like the liar paradox, 'all proof is proof until proven otherwise' Try and prove that if you wish. It also depends what you mean by proof.

My theory is provable, not provable and neutral simultaneously...

[protheory]

I don't try to scientifically define my ideas, I'd be a fool to try this as my theory doesn't exactly lend itself easily to definition, what with its seemingly perpetual ambiguity. Also, remember will you that this is a TOE, not a random idea. TOEs are meant to be revolutionary, trying to fit my ideas into the semi-flawed logic of mathematics and physics would be going against the grain for me. Just because I don't follow your established rules doesn't mean I'm wrong (I'm wrong, right, neutral).

[protheory]

Also am I to take it that when you said (in post 5) "'I'm afraid TO don't have the intellectual authority to be attempting to prove, let alone convince others you have proved, a statement so complicated as RH" that you meant to say "you" instead of "to"? I'd like to know because it's important if you're accusing me of not making sense...

[protheory]

It was never my intention to confuse anybody, ever. My talk of critical lines etc is just that, talk about critical lines.

Imagine a line, imagine two opposite points at each side of the line, and neutrality in the middle. I'm someone that had an idea and talked about it. I wrote a theory suggesting three possibilities simultaneously so what do you expect me to do?

Pretend that Riemann is a special case so my theory doesn't apply?

[protheory]

I can seriously respond, not a problem, I've copied your comments to a text file so I'll respond once I've digested what you've written, then I'll pick what you've said apart bit by bit. I'd rather talk about GraveDiggaz though, been a fan of them for a long time myself, but I guess that would be out of context.

I feel like taking you apart now to be honest but it's my own fault I've not explained properly so I can't blame you for your opinions :)

[azkeyz]

May I also suggest that like john nash that we learn the mysterious equations of the heart.

your solution does not violate john nash equalibrium.

[azkeyz]

I see your answer is , yes no and nutral

answer accepted.

[protheory]

Yes, these are my answer(s), thanks for seeing through all the opinion etc to the crux of my logic :)

[azkeyz]

I feel compelled to also tell you that when you're a mathematition you don't care about no deploma or prizes or fame or recognition , all you care about is resolving a problem and are properly understanding the result.

hint , since math is a arbitrary construct

and since the human brain is not capable of 100% comprehension of all that is implied in the quantum system

that we be satisfied with the BEST answer.

[azkeyz]

I'm going to suggest something to you about remanns , I'm going to suggest to you that the set of axioms concerning remanns needs a more clear language.

in other words I'm going to suggest you consider that more data is required to resolve the possible outcomes of remanns, in short , a result may not be understood at first , it's implications may not be fully understood.

[lash209]

It is entirely true that lack of a degree does not imply ignorance Fermat was a lawyer Eisenstein was a patent agent it simply implies for one reason or another the said person didn't do the countless hours of busy work to receive the degree. Also a degree does not guarantee knowledge i know plenty of people with higher educational degrees who are fucking idiots. Leave the poor guy alone he stated the hypothesis exactly as it is. Good job Pro keep up the good work.

[protheory]

In the same way that I don't judge a person by their skin colour or name I request that people commenting on my lack of degree level education please respect me as I am. Please listen to me, read my website, then think about it for a while before you post comments of a judgemental nature about me. Just because I don't have a degree doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll finish by saying 'I simultaneously oppose, agree with and neutralise all criticism ad infinitum.' Peace. Pro.

[terrencetao]

Actually, you NOT having a degree DOES mean you don't know what you're talking about, in respect to being unable to fully understand what the Riemann Hypothesis is, mathematically.

If you don't have the background, you can't answer an advanced question.

Stop humiliating yourself.

Get your degree and try again in a couple years.

(and opposing, agreeing, and neutralizing all criticism is a fallacy on your part. But if you were saying it as a joke, then it's OK, because I laughed)

[jameswp266]

A lack of a degree doesn't indicate ignorance, Where was fermat's degree?

[XKaffe]

Degrees mean nothing - all you need is a passion for the subject. I failed high school maths but I can create a prime number of any amount of digits with a pencil and paper. Pro Rules - he's a genius.

[carusggg]

pfff , what are you saing there ?:|

[blacklions714]

find a number theory in E=mc2 for me.

[landin048]

protheory-this is so interesting, but I think the reason some people have a little bit of difficulty understanding you is some of us are not used to your accent. Can you slow down just a tiny bit for those of us who really want to participate but need a little time to adjust a different accent accent than what we are used to hearing? Thank you.

[tracmag]

You probably speak correctly, however I have to strain to understand what words you are saying. It is not pleasant listening to you talk. Then again, maybe the problem lies in me.

[merlinmekok92]

buddha damn it what are you saying

[ajhumour]

what do you mean by zero's? if i know that i can giv u an answer...

[protheory]

Thanks affluence8 :) The first comment I ever got on this vid was "Damn you are a retard..." and it wnet on about a certain form of Riemann's equation. Needless to say I replied via message but the commenter never responded. This is why I preview comments.

[affluence8]

Cool Dude.. If you had ratings enabled I would have given you 5 stars. :)

[thegoonist]

just wondering...

if you are able to prove that all real numbers can be presented as products of prime numbers only, would that prove that prime numbers are infinite?

[ihateuutube]

well, that fact in itself does not prove that there are infinitely many prime numbers. you use that fact to prove it. the proof is a very simple and elegant proof by contradiction.

[carusggg]

if it is so then 0.(0)x is prime

[Dantexg6]

si quieres que te den mas importancia , mejora ese audio (usa microfono)

[protheory]

Great to hear that ultimatespider :) Please spread the word about my forum if you wish.

Pro.

[ultimatespider17]

i just got to let you know that your forums of the riemann hypothesis has inspire me to work on this problem. i hope it leads me to something.

[protheory]

Thanks, I have a forum linked to in the About section :)

[ultimatespider17]

very interesting

[protheory]

I'll split it with you if you like ;)

[Zantorc]

There are an infinite number of zeros not on the critical line for example -2, -4, -6 ... Can I have my $1 million now. :-)

[protheory]

Thank you very much for your comment :)

[maxx666mayhem]

This video is very inspirational

[protheory]

Good point 23remi23, on this video I'm suggesting that zero is the neutral quantity (so to speak) and so in effect the critical line is neutral. It lies between the graph axes with real part 1 half, neither completely nothing or completely a whole number. This is difficult to explain as my comment character limit is nearly up but I hope it makes some sense.

[23remi23]

we cant prove if the zeros stay on the critical line because numbers are infinite.

[protheory]

Do you mean I should use a blackboard or somebody else? I've g0t a website and forum linked in the About This Video at top of this page.

[Dan31415926535]

USE A BLACKBOARD!

[protheory]

Fair point MasterGhostKnight and I can see where you're coming from but Pro Theory is a theory of everything therefore it applies to literally everything. It's a way of thinking about the fluidity of everything. Let's say that I say the opposite to your statement about infinity, what happens then? At what point do we say that a proof has been achieved? And how do we know that the next time we look at our proof it will be the same?

[lifeemusicelife]

When it comes to the proof that primes are infinite... there is no question of validity.. I don't understand where you come off saying that a proof can be different when we view it at different times. I also don't undestand what you are saying when you say "let's say that I oppose your statement about infinity". The PROOF that primes are infinite STARTS that way--and shows that this cannot be the case...and thus they must be infinite...

[mathrox01]

That is correct hyppolitoocho, as the proof that there is an infinite number of primes is relativly simple due to the the axioms already established concerning infiniy. i.e we have an infinite number of natural numbers (a prime is natural) ERGO there must be an infinte number of primes.

[MasterGhostKnight]

Your arguments is rater wrong. Is like saying, 2 is natural, there are infinite naturals and so there must be infinte 2 (obviously something is wrong here).

The proff first assumes that they are not infinite, then I can count them all and multiply them one to another. If I add 1 then this new number is not a multiple of everyother primes, so we must have another prime and so we didn't not had them all and so they must be infinite.

[lifeemusicelife]

This is correct (although a little underdone)..you forgot to mention that the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmatic says that any natural number can be expressed as a product of primes...and so, since this new number is not divisible by any of the finite primes, it must itself be a prime if it is to be a product of primes.

[hyppolitoocho]

Riemann wasn't proving that there were infinite primes. That was already done. His hypothesis was that all the nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function had the real part 1/2.

[protheory]

It's not so much a proof of infinite primes it's more of a 'proof' of changing energies in my opinion. Primes arise from other numbers and in theory I suppose we could go on forever (i.e. to infinity).

[evil221884]

hey can you explain this to me???? The euler product is the zeta function is equal to product of (1-p^-s)^-1. Why must both LHS and RHS be infinite. Cant I put s = 2 on the LHS which will give me (pi)^2/6 . Hence the RHS converges....so how the hell is this really a proof for infinite primes.

[hyppolitoocho]

I typed in Riemann Hypothesis and this came up. As a bit of 'exercise' a friend and I are working towards calculating the first ten nontrivial zeros of the Riemann Zeta function.  I am curious if anyone else is working in a similar direction, or has knowledge about this. Drop me a message.

[protheory]

Ok, will message you tomorrow about this. RH is a really simple problem in essence. The complexity seems only to arise in the sense of trying to comprehend all numbers as a whole. As long as we're keeping things simple we're ok. I'll explain more in my message. I'm just talking about the three potentials within everything here :)

[AWA821]

It seems like your saying something like: "The answer to all questions is either yes or no, OR something different from yes or no." Omathematics is right - it's tautological, not a theory of everything, it is the foundation that one must accept before attempting a solution to any question.

[protheory]

Hi omathematics, thanks for the comment. I've not really heard of Tautology before but thanks for the info on this :) My main goal with my videos is trying to explain everything as simply as possible for everybody so I tend to try and avoid the complicated approach for this reason. If you fancy a chat about this I've got a forum linked to from my video description.

[protheory]

Hi speedster33, sorry about my mumbling speech on this video, I'm afraid this is one of the first videos I ever recorded and so I was very nervous. My later videos are quite a lot clearer :)

[protheory]

Hi stanek, thanks for the comment. I've made a few more videos about numbers on my channel if you're interested in what I've got to say. This is a very old video that I was planning to remake but haven't quite got around to yet :)

[omathematics]

The logical formula for your statement could be defined as follows:(a||!a)||!(a||!a), which reads: "(a or not a) or not(a or not a)" This is referred to as a tautology - a statement that is true for every case (where a is in this case THE REIMANN HYPOTHESIS). You need to take some math classes you naughty boy!

[speedster33]

Would you mind speaking more clearly, I can't hear what you're saying.

[stanek]

For starters maybe you could do an example a few numbers showing how the math works out. say 1-10. I couldnt hear you all that well but thank you for this.

[protheory]

Hi, thanks for the positive comment :) I don't really know how to write complicated mathematical formulas either to be honest but I know how to represent the formulas in graphical form such as this. I'm waiting for my internet connection to get sorted then I'll remake this video hopefully :)

[edma81]

hi, i don't know how to put it in mathematical formulas, but i get the idea what u r talkin' about... i could try to refrase u: "the pronounced world cannot pronounce itself like it was pronounced"... that's a metaphorical approach i would say :)

[protheory]

This is to say thanks to everybody that has watched this video so far :)

I'm planning to make some more clips about the RH soon but it takes a bit of thinking about and I want to film a detailed examination of this problem.