A proof of RH using quantum physics

[symplectic_manifold]

Oh Jesus Christ and Holy Maria!
What a thread what a thread?!
I can't spare my time for this post so I just refer to the last post on V.S.'s "proof" of Fermat.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Can I jump in just to point out that you can't prove a theorem in MATHEMATICS by using PHYSICS? The truth of a mathematics statement does not depend upon whether the physics statements are true or not.

 

[David]

if they discovered the proof long ago...why did they not publish it?

Precisely for the reasons I said above: It's not a proof! People have made the observation you think you are making even more concretely but they all acknowledge that it is not a proof of anything. So what we are saying is that even if you turn this into a coherent statement, it is something that others have already said.

...in a post above i have proof that the potential exist

You don't need to prove that there is a potential that relates to the properties of the zeta function. That has already been done. It's just that it doesn't have anything to do with a proof.

and even calculated it to first order in perturbation theory depending on \delta{E(n)} and the E_{n} and E^0_{n} are known even more if we call Z the inverse of the function \zeta(s) then we could write: E_{n}=i(1/2-Z(0)) (i have oly inverted the function, and i have used simple integral equation theory to prove the existence of the potential...

As soon as you say you have calculated something to first order, or used the WKB approximation, or anything like that we immediately KNOW that those statements can't be part of a proof.

People can already calculate all the zeros of the zeta function. But it will take an infinite amount of time, just as your approximate processes might be able to do the same calculation if you do it properly, but it still has nothing to do with a proof because an infinite process will never be considered a proof seeing as you can't complete it.

The problem with Matt (as happen with most of math teachers) is that they have assumed certain conceptions in math and if you are out of these,you are nothing,

Why exactly are you interested in trying to show anything to mathematicians if you reject mathematics? Mathematics defines its own processes very carefully so you can either accept those processes and do mathematics, or you can reject those processes and accept that you are not doing mathematics. (In that case, though, why should mathematicians listen to you when you incorrectly claim to be doing mathematics?)

i don,t know what argument will now matt grime have to say my maths are wrong,but is only an "approach to the potential" (is would be only correct to first order in perturbation theory, the whole serie of values of energy is perhaps even divergent) and the WKB is also an approach,to say that we can choose some functions that are on L^{2}(R) function space...\psi=Asen(S(x)/\hbar) for example.

another question as we are dealing with rigour an other things...can anyone of you brilliant,smart intelligent mathematician to prove the existence of infinitesimals,i,ll put even more easier,write (with numerical value) an infinitesimal...

I addressed the problem of using approximations above. As for the issue of infinitesimals, which is completely off-topic for this discussion, infinitesimals are not something whose existence should be proven - they are something that is defined. And if you knew that you would also know that it is impossible to write a numerical value for one because, by definition, they do not admit numerical expansions.

People have been pretty patient with you and tried to help you understand why what you are doing is not proof but you seem to refuse to even learn what "proof" means in mathematics and, instead, complain that mathematicians won't listen to you. Why should anybody listen to you tell them how to do their work when you have demonstrated that you don't understand what their work is?

Given that people have been trying to help you, don't you think it is pretty rude of you to refuse to listen or learn?

 

[eljose]

-To Hallsoft Ivy:this problem can be seen in a mathematical way as the Hilbert-Polya conjecture (a selfadjoint operator with real potential that has its eigenvalues as the roots of the function \zeta(1/2+is),that is to prove that exist a real potential and a self adjoint operator with a given V so all its eigenvalue are the roots of the function zeta evaluated at 1/2+is,then i prove this is self-adjoint (as the potential is real and a Hamiltonian with a real potentia has all its eigenvalues real) for the cases a+is with a different from 1/2 there are compplex roots so the potential can not be real...all the steps i made are justified mathematically i have not introduced any physical or empirical proof. (you can view H as a self-adjoint operator,and WKB solutions as the solutions to an equation of the form:
ey``+f(x)y=0 with e an small parameter e<<1 as you can see all is math there


-To symplectic manifold...if this proof were made by an universtiy smart and snob teacher i,m sure that you would accept it...

-To David:i have proved that the potential exist and have given an expression for it in the form:

V(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dnR(n,x)\delta{E(n)} (1) (although of course this is only an approximation,you can calculate it in finite time by integrating upto a N finite so you only should need to calculate a finite (but big ) number of roots of Z(1/2+is)).

as you can see the potential exists and can be calculated,also for a=1/2 the potential is real i have calculated all the necessary steps to prove RH but if they don,t want to give you the fame and the prize because you are not famous they will invent any excuse...i am sure that if my steps (as i have said before) were made by a famous mathematician from a famous university the RH would have been proved long ago...as i have told before at least Gauss,Euler and others were given an opportunity to publish their ideas...my teachers don,t want to know anything from me or give me the chance to prove RH...

From the mathematical point of view my proof of RH is similar to this:

a differential operator H=aD^{2}+V(x) where we must choos V so the eigenvalues of this operator are precisely the roots of \zeta(1/2+is)=0.

for the potential V knowing some of the energies E_{n} we could obtain V in an integral form as expressed by (1).

for a small a<<1 (in our case is m>>h) the WKB solutions are the solutions of a differential equation ey´´+f(x)y=0..

i have not made any physical assumptions at all.

 

[Zurtex]

Let K be the set of all solutions that satisfy \zeta (s) = 0. Let there exist some p such that:

\frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial i^2} a^3 - \Gamma (i^2) = 0

Now I can prove that these exists a solution i = f_k (p) therefore i exists. If i exists there must be a limit to g(p) and p approaches infinity and therefore p exists. Thus the roots of:

\int_0^\infty \frac{g(s)}{p \Gamma(s)} ds = \sin i

Are synonyms to the Zeta functions roots and all have roots of \Re (p) = 1/2

Therefore RH is proven and no one can come up with a counter-example.

 

[Hurkyl]

You were warned.