joigus

I learn so much with you guys.

From a not-totally-selfish POV, thanks for appreciating the humour in my comment, @HallsofIvy

Apparently not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereotopology

I hate to be the party pooper here, but, Cones have infinite curvature at the tip, did you know that? That would be a problem, I surmise. You seem to have heard or read about Coleman-DeLucia vacuum decay, but that's nothing to do with cones. In general you need smooth energy diagrams to be able to make any sensible prediction. Which brings me to my next questions: What predictions does you model make? What retrodictions does your double big-bang achieve that are not already fit within the current standard cosmological model? Try to be the hardest critic of your theory. Does it work? Does it make sense? Does it add anything significant? Is it natural and simple? Read @MigL's very nice summary --although I hate his spelling of "Euclidean"-- and ask yourself: Do I understand these concepts? Why are they important? Are there already observations supporting DeSitter universe? Etc.

(My emphasis.) You are like what sometimes people ignore? What does that mean? Can you keep attention to what you're saying from one line to the next, please?

And how would that go? I usually think what I think. I do not sort out what I'm going to think in advance.

Is she any closer to proving RH? Maybe rogue is the way to go... You know... Just to keep on topic by the skin of our teeth.

In the UK, not necessarily.

I shudder to think what a nutter would do with a powerful theorem.

My struggle with grammar...

(My emphasis) Your audience? I'd rather you used, according to the Forum's rules.

I just want to add one thing. Sometimes imperfect proofs have the seeds of a really watertight proof in them, once necessary auxiliary investigations are made. As to the RH, there is a general feeling of pessimism, though:

Criticism by Luboš Motl that you may find interesting. He's highly suspicious that there may be flaws in the proof, although he certainly praises Kubalalika for their creativity: https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/10/some-fun-with-proof-of-riemann.html If I have understood correctly, for some auxiliary hypothesis to work, the RH itself must be true, so it's kind of a begging-the-question type of objection. We will have to wait and see some serious peer review by mathematicians.

Can you please point to the contradiction? As I can't see it.

Beautiful. Thank you.

You're most welcome. Physics is the realm of common-sense wonder. Welcome to the forums.

A simulation is worth a thousand words:

\[\left(183.5\pm.5\right)\textrm{ cm}\] May I also insist on what they've told you before?: Talk to her. Make her smile. Don't mention height. Be sincere. Forget about pick-up lines. Whatever it is that's good in you, make it shine.

(My emphasis.) Merely? How did Newton and Galileo manage to get anything done?

It must have been sheer luck. Let's say I was just talking from hearlore. But you've made noises in the innermost recesses of my linguistic and mathematical mind and awaken the creatures that live in the gallery of my mathematical and linguistic monsters. Maybe another thread is in order.

Well, you're right. Maybe not always. In continuum mechanics that may not be the case. In field theory it certainly is.

Ditto.

Field variables always can be seen to "inhabit" a space of their own. In the case of the electromagnetic field this internal dimension is the angle along a circle. You can picture the EM field as an entity that, for every point in space time, is given by an angle in this internal dimension. That's why Kaluza and Klein were able to model the EM field as a curly dimension (circle) superimposed on every space-time point. Yes, you're right. But that happens after the measurement has taken place.

I couldn't agree more. X-posted with Tristan L. OK. Thanks for drawing my attention to right English. I'm always eager to learn about language. But how many of those Anglish speakers are knowledgeable enough to have a meaningful conversation about second-order logic? See my point? I'm sure a compromise is possible. Mathematics has nothing to do with empire-building, does it?

Your point is well taken, @Tristan L, but I think the topic is difficult enough in and of itself that facilitating communication to as wider readership as possible overrides every other need. You can't speak a language that only you understand. I was totally thrown off by "ownship" and "witcraft".