pull down to refresh

In this article, we present solutions for one of the oldest mathematical problems, the Collatz Conjecture, and provide a proof for the Riemann Hypothesis, utilizing a new number theory based on newly discovered number properties, which will also be presented in this paper. This is made possible through the Sophy-Peter mathematical framework, built upon this new number theory. The Collatz Conjecture will be disproven, but as an alternative, the Oscillating Theorem will be introduced, with its correctness proven within this article. Furthermore, we present the general version of the Riemann zeta function, developed based on the new number theory. The correctness of this function is verified by comparing it with existing results of the zeta function. Using this approach and the Sophy-Peter framework, we have successfully proven the Riemann Hypothesis, long considered a millennium problem. Moreover, since the general zeta function is proven, this implies the correctness of the new number theory and the Sophy-Peter framework.
This would be big news, but I'm not seeing any reference to it on reputable platforms. It's also just a non-peer-reviewed preprint.
reply
1.1. Concept of Infinity and the Problem with the Thinking ParadigmWe can suppose that giving a definition for infinity is kind of pointless since everybody knowswhat it means, but we will give a formal definition. Infinity [1] is something which is boundless,endless, or larger than any natural number. Imagine counting numbers: no matter how high you count,you can always count one more, but how do we know that it is true? How do we know there is nolimit? Do we know at least one real-life example of infinity? Someone could say, ’Yes, for example, theexpansion of the universe,’ but it is a theory, which means no one has actually proved that.We will take a look at infinity from the point of view of a hypothesis. Infinity is an assumptionmade by humans and has a lot of contradictions [3] (examples of which will be presented in Chapter3). If we are being honest, if we took any other hypothesis and got a huge amount of contradictions,we would immediately conclude that the hypothesis is wrong. Then the philosophical question arises:why do humans continue to believe in that concept?Maybe it is an illusion made by our brains since we suppose our brains want to believe in the factthat we are having an unlimited amount of computational power (so assuming infinity doesn’t exist isa contradiction to this belief because it implies we are limited). Except for that, we are trusting smartphilosophers, and most people would be afraid to contradict their ideas, especially after hundreds ofyears. Now, when we are thinking about the concept of infinity, does it really make sense, or do wewant it to make sense?
This is what they chose as introduction to solving a millennial problem... hmm, not convinced :)
reply