sevensixtwo

Nah, you are wrong.

Pretty much, yup.

I agree that the rules you have proposed lead to the implication that infinity is a real number but I am not willing to concede that these rules are part of the definition of a real number. For that, you would need to present some third party source which say the rules you posed are part of the definition of real numbers rather than merely some properties which can be derived by only considering real numbers in the neighborhood of the origin. Until you do, I will stick with the definition in my real analysis book. If you have such a book it is probably in yours too: real numbers are cuts in the real number line. I just tried to google it and Wolfram doesn't define real numbers but I found the same definition on Wikipedia. I can post the link to Wikipedia if you want. Since you seem to have a brain and are not trolling me like user name "stupid idiot," what is your opinion on an implication that infinity is a real number?

(1) Yes I can. You can make your same argument about "cannot" regarding the square root of a negative number and yet we use those every day. (2) I use exactly the usual definition of a neighborhood of infinity. You are totally wrong. If there is some inconsistency with the definition of a real number number as a cut in the real number line then I challenge you to identify it. If there is some other inconsistency besides that, then those are only properties of real numbers in the neighborhood of the origin. (3) I am discussing a region of the complex plane which has been previously neglected but the neighborhood of infinity is absolutely in the complex plane. Again, you are totally wrong. Thank you. I agree that (infinity - b) + b = infinity , but I do not see how that implies that infinity is a real number. My definition of a real number is the one I learned in the first five minutes of the first lecture of my first semester of undergraduate real analysis: a real number is a cut in the real number line, only that and nothing more. All other definitions have to do with fields of numbers and other more complicated things that exceed the definition of a real number.

Zero is the same as zero hat. I use the hat to make a formal distinction between R and R_0 so that R_0 mirrors hat R in the notation. I don't see what you're getting at in your posted reasoning, nor do I feel like I understand what you have proven (attempted to prove) with it so I can neither agree nor disagree.

yes That doesn't follow. If you think it does, please give two real numbers whose difference is infinity. Before you do that, please consider that if you define a real number as numeral rather than as a cut in the real number line I will have to remind you that the definition of a real number is that it is a cut in the real number line. That would be the paper I posted in full in OP post of this thread. Here is link, if you would like to click it. I'm not sure what I could clarify for you without simply copying a sentence from the paper. Is everything clarified for you now? I'm not able to discern any request for clarification in your most recent post. Maybe you are asking if "b" can be a real number in the neighborhood of infinity. The answer is no; I have used "R" in the usual way to refer only to numbers in the neighborhood of the origin without "hat 0" inserted for clarity. I have not proposed to modify what we use the symbol "R" for, I have only proposed to modify the concept of real numbers. In the future people might consider "R" to be the union of "R_0" and "hat R" but until they all agree to change what "R" means I will use it in the regular way: "R" = "R_0" without the "hat 0" symbol.

If you would have read the paper, you would have seen that "b" is a real number. There is no real number greater than infinity. Please read the whole paper. There are only a few sentences and I put all of them in there because they are important. Also, I have proven that there are non trivial zeros outside of the critical strip in the neighborhood of infinity. If you believe there is a proof that there are no such zeros then please post it. That would be really great for me to study because such a result would have a large impact on my research.

I say there is the same number of them because each uniquely labelled R_0 number has a hat R number with that same label, and there are no other hat R numbers except for those which share a label with R_0 numbers. In the paper I call this label "b" If you would have read the paper, you would have seen in the first few lines that infinity is "+/- infinity" and if you were familiar with analysis at even the undergraduate level you would know that these are the endpoints of the extended real line. You might feel more at home in the less advanced forum because these symbols I use are already quite basic.

You are probably not in the intended audience for the paper then.

No. The meaning is that ascribed to it in the sentence which describes it in the body of the article and the author, who is definitely me, has also provided a citation for anyone who cannot parse "all canonically non-standard properties except additive absorption." However, anyone who cannot parse that statement is probably not able to parse the similar statements in the citation. On the other hand, if you wanted to make the argument that something which has not been previously invented cannot be invented then I would be open to reading your argument.

That's a good question. I was trying to find the answer in the OP image, and it looks like there's a sentence and a citation for that very question. You should have a look and tell me if it answers your question. I think the numerical value of the radius of the neighborhood of the origin might not exist due to equation (1). What is your opinion regarding the question you asked?

Image from these undergrad complex analysis notes (page 5).

Is what you're calling my "initial assumption" this picture? Much like I can assure you of many things, I can assure you that this is a real screen shot of a post by a real admin on this forum.

Not unless you read the paper that explains it.

I can assure that my question wasn't an argument, much like I can assure your of own ability to analyze rhetoric for fallacious reasoning.

Why is the developer of a scientific theory not allowed to discuss their own theory on this website?

My argument is that infinity is not symmetric about the origin and the gradient in the yellow and green region of pic related implies that the the Riemann zeta function has eigenvalues whose real parts are not equal to one half.

Here is the paper: http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073 Also testing if the "lol XD you so fahnny posting you schizo viXra maymays xD XD XD" people are active in this forum.

How will the history of science look back on the time when the whole world chose not to recognize the biggest discovery because they didn't like the website that published the papers? Should the ringleaders of this anti-science campaign be punished? If so, in what sense is it appropriate to visit the sins of the father even unto the third and fourth generations?

Many of us read the recent Guardian articles by Marcus du Sautoy and Alok Jha that described a potential new 14D geometric theory of everything. Unlike most such theories, Geometric Unity has a unique experimental prediction that can verify it or rule it out. CERN is capable of making this measurement with existing equipment. The mathematics and physics communities have been unable to judge the claims directly since they are looking for papers by Weinstein, and there are none. In fact, the theory was developed by another author and Weinstein's contribution has been to popularize the ideas. If you are interested in the truth, I highly recommend reading the following links. This article is non-mathematical and outlines the development and prominent features of Geometric Unity. The Truth About Geometric Unity This paper contains the mathematical breakthrough. A new interpretation of time leads to a connection between GR and QM. Einstein's equations and the fine structure constant derived from one simple principle. Tempus Edax Rerum The 14D geometric model is presented in detail. A flaw in the ADM positive-definiteness theorem is identified. A major outstanding issue in Kaluza theory is resolved. Geometric Cosmology The standard model of particle physics is shown to be a geometric property of the Geometric Unity cosmology. A unique experimental prediction is made. Quantum Structure The features of the theory are treated in a technical, yet qualitative way. A solution to dark energy is proposed. Dark Energy in M-Theory

One of the interesting things about the CMB is that no matter which direction we look, it always the same distance away. Normally, when a surface is lies at the same distance in every direction we say that the surface is a sphere and the observer is at its center. For some reason, the principle of cosmic hand-waving or some such, this standard obvious logic does not apply to the universe. Instead we say the universe has a finite size governed by expansion since the big bang, but no matter where you are in the universe the CMB will be eqaully far in every direction. I hope the faulty logic there is clear. If it is the same distance in evey direction -- from every point in the universe -- then the universe has to be inifinite. If the universe is finite, the CMB can only appear equidistant when observed from near the center. Here is an alternative interpretation of the CMB. Consider a diver in the ocean. There is some sphere of visibility around him that ends in a wall of blue at some distance. This is the mean free path of light in the water. No matter where the diver goes or looks, the distance to the wall of blue light will always be equidistant in all directions. Now replace the blue light with microwaves and the diver with Earth. The CMB appears equidistant due to some scattering effect. It is hard to say what the scattering effect might be, but hey... it's hard to say why the Earth should be in the exact center of the universe in the prevailing CMB theory.

Many of us read the recent Guardian articles by Marcus du Sautoy and Alok Jha that described a potential new 14D geometric ToE. Unlike most ToEs, Geometric Unity has a unique experimental prediction that can verify it or rule it out. CERN is capable of making this measurement with existing equipment. The physics community has been unable to judge the claims directly since they are looking for papers by Weinstein, and there are none. In fact, the theory was developed by another author and Weinstein's contribution has been to popularize the ideas. If you are interested in the truth, I highly recommend reading the first link first. This article is non-scientific and outlines the development and prominent features of Geometric Unity. The Truth About Geometric Unity A new interpretation of time leads to a connection between GR and QM. Einstein's equations and the fine structure constant derived from one simple principle. Tempus Edax Rerum The 14D model is presented in detail. A flaw in the ADM positive-definiteness theorem is identified. A major outstanding issue in Kaluza theory is resolved. Geometric Cosmology Geometric Unity predicts the structure of the standard model. A unique experimental prediction is made. Quantum Structure The features of the theory are treated in a technical, yet qualitative way. A solution to dark energy is proposed. Dark Energy in M-Theory

I wager you're in for quite a wait!

Many of us read the recent Guardian articles by Marcus du Sautoy and Alok Jha that described a potential new 14D geometric ToE. Unlike most ToEs, Geometric Unity has a unique experimental prediction that can verify it or rule it out. CERN is capable of making this measurement with existing equipment. The physics community has been unable to judge the claims directly since they are looking for papers by Weinstein, and there are none. In fact, the theory was developed by another author and Weinstein's contribution has been to popularize the ideas. If you are interested in the truth, I highly recommend reading the first link first. This article is non-scientific and outlines the development and prominent features of Geometric Unity. The Truth About Geometric Unity A new interpretation of time leads to a connection between GR and QM. Einstein's equations and the fine structure constant derived from one simple principle. Tempus Edax Rerum The 14D model is presented in detail. A flaw in the ADM positive-definiteness theorem is identified. A major outstanding issue in Kaluza theory is resolved. Geometric Cosmology Geometric Unity predicts the structure of the standard model. A unique experimental prediction is made. Quantum Structure The features of the theory are treated in a technical, yet qualitative way. A solution to dark energy is proposed. Dark Energy in M-Theory