The Millenium Prize Problems

[Rabbiter]

P Versus NP

Hodge Conjecture

Poincare Conjecture

Reimann Hypothesis

Yang-Milis existence and mass gap

Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness

Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture (which i thought was already proved)

 

 

so far the only 1 that was solved is Poincare Conjecture by Gregori Pearlman.....

 

what are the chances of some genius mathematician or mathematicians solving the other ones

[John Cuthber]

The chances are 1 in 124.73

But I'm not using a conventional definition of genius.

[Rabbiter]

The chances are 1 in 124.73

But I'm not using a conventional definition of genius.

 

grigori pearlman did solve/prove the pointcare conjecture, which im sure alot of top mathematicians thought wasn't going to happen in a long time, so anything is possible

[sws5000]

I CLAIM THAT I HAVE A FULL PROOF FOR RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS

 

 

 

[mathematic]

I CLAIM THAT I HAVE A FULL PROOF FOR RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS

 

 

 

 

 

Submit it to a peer review math journal.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

And stop hijacking other threads.

[univeral theory]

P Versus NP

Hodge Conjecture

Poincare Conjecture

Reimann Hypothesis

Yang-Milis existence and mass gap

Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness

Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture (which i thought was already proved)

 

 

so far the only 1 that was solved is Poincare Conjecture by Gregori Pearlman.....

 

what are the chances of some genius mathematician or mathematicians solving the other ones

 

find the solution for the remainning six problems as solved here

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=4364

[Bignose]

 

find the solution for the remainning six problems as solved here

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=4364

 

Wow

 

Eqn 1 is [math]\frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})}=1[/math] and

 

Eqn 2 is [math]\partial\left(\frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})}\right)= 1 + or - 1[/math]

 

I stopped reading after that. It literally looks like you just took some math symbols and tossed them together. Because it is otherwise meaningless.

 

Specifically:

 

why write s/1 in a fractional form? Isn't that just s?

the numerator of equation 1 is jibberish. What are you adding to what with the + sign? the decimal point? the minus sign?

In equation 2 What are you taking the partial derivative of? And with respect to what?

What is that 'or' doing on the RHS of eqn 2? How does one know if it is +1 or -1?

 

After these numerous mistakes, I just quit reading.

 

I posted this simply in the hopes that no one else wastes their time or bandwidth downloading the .pdf file. Trust me, it is worth neither.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Bignose

[Delta1212]

It's not adding anything, the number in the numerator is obviously +.- or - tens more than +. This is a constant such that, if multiplied by any number, it equals the square of that number. Thus that equation yields 1 as an answer.

[John Cuthber]

Congratulations!

You have successfully translated a gibberish equation into gibberish words.

[Delta1212]

That was sort of the point.

[D H]

In other words, you're trolling, and what's worse, you admit it.

[Delta1212]

I enjoy finding ways to make sense of nonsense, even if it doesn't ultimately mean anything. I sincerely apologize if that was inappropriate in this context.

[ydoaPs]

This is a constant such that, if multiplied by any number, it equals the square of that number.

There is no such constant.

 

cx=x²

 

Divide both sides by x

 

c=x

 

Look at that, your constant is a variable.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Back on topic, please.