Is it possible to get your paper, or at least the first 100 pages, in PDF or other printable format, so that I can print them and read them comfortably over a cup of tea? Thanks.
Sure, you can do that, there is a link in the description you might be asked using your Google account, I have not released my triumph card yet, give a try whether it makes any sense to you, if not wait for the release of finale.
@GodlessPhilosopher: Where can I find his TH-cam video? Reply: Surajit Ghosh-Where you are commenting there itself Q: what does “Where you are commenting there itself” mean? It does not appear to make sense and where is that video?
Hey Ravi, I’ve been checking out your work on the unified zeta function and related ideas, and it's really interesting! I have a few questions and thoughts I hope you can help with: Unified Zeta Function: How does your version of the zeta function fit with the traditional one? What’s the deal with removing poles and keeping things analytic? Extended Gamma Function: Can you explain how your extended gamma function connects to the usual gamma function and factorials? Are there cases where it’s different? Negative Logarithmic Seeds: What’s the idea behind adding negative logarithmic terms to exponential functions? How do they fit into your overall framework? Cyclic Numbers: How does your work shed new light on cyclic numbers? Any cool new properties or insights? Euler’s Identity and Rotation: How does your take on Euler’s identity and number rotation go beyond the usual stuff? Any practical examples or results? Looking forward to hearing more about these! Thanks!
I’ve been checking out your work on the unified zeta function and related ideas, and it's really interesting! I have a few questions and thoughts I hope you can help with: Unified Zeta Function: How does your version of the zeta function fit with the traditional one? The traditional one is analytic bcoz my zeta function works as a harmonic conjugate to it with domain =1,What’s the deal with removing poles and keeping things analytic? Removing poles was required to examine the zeros. Eventually the unified zeta (Euler+Riemann+Surajit) function become an entire function. Extended Gamma Function: Can you explain how your extended gamma function connects to the usual gamma function and factorials? Are there cases where it’s different? Extended gamma functions slides to negative factorials, on the way traditional gamma poles get removed and we get a triangular inverse kind of relation between the gamma variants and their periodical harmonic conjugates. If you don’t see the unification then it may appear different, but once you see the unification you can use this functions interchangeably, even you can change the gamma calculators code to add the additional domains it work for. Negative Logarithmic Seeds: What’s the idea behind adding negative logarithmic terms to exponential functions? How do they fit into your overall framework? I guess you talk about 1/e + ln(ln(2)) ~ 0, there is no negative logarithm in this, it’s the logarithmic results bringing the negative sign to make an additive inverse. I used ln(2) as the definition for imaginary number I and saw it’s seeds can grow into big trees naturally. Cyclic Numbers: How does your work shed new light on cyclic numbers? Any cool new properties or insights? Euler’s Identity and Rotation: How does your take on Euler’s identity and number rotation go beyond the usual stuff? Any practical examples or results? Looking forward to hearing more about these! Thanks! Once you set the rotator in the place of imaginary number iota then it keeps on rotating outward.For example e^22, e^33, I derived this numbers using just few fundamental physical constants.
@@rhsolved Hey! I looked through your summary and noticed a few issues. The unified zeta function being described as a “harmonic conjugate” with domain \(\leq 1\) is confusing because that term usually doesn’t apply to the zeta function in this way. Also, the idea of removing poles to make the function entire seems a bit off from the usual method since the traditional zeta function has poles and is analytically continued. The extended gamma function handling negative factorials and removing poles sounds unconventional and needs more clarity. Adding negative logarithms to exponentials and linking this to imaginary numbers isn’t entirely clear, especially the role of \(\ln(2)\). You mentioned new insights into cyclic numbers but didn’t provide specifics, so it’s hard to see what’s new. Lastly, using physical constants to get numbers like \(e^{22}\) and \(e^{33}\) is intriguing but needs more explanation on how they relate to Euler’s identity.
I started watching the video, but I found it too much of a social background mood swing and sensations are coming style. You talk about a guy, Ravi who found a proof, you describe how he is not a mathematician but engages openly with the community, all while you present a TeX document that is apparently your work. Are you Ravi? If not, what is this paper you are presenting without explaining anything you (or somebody?) wrote in this paper? How is the paper related to Ravi and how are you related to either? Where is the link to Ravi's TH-cam video that as you say went viral? This was promising, the first 15s, but it grows to look like the usual YT nonsense...
Ravi is Microsoft Ravi the Indian TTS guy, the paper is mine and I am Surajit, I borrowed Ravis name to cook this YT nonsense so that my paper gets it's deserved viewing.
i could not spare enough time to delve further. i think the results will come quicker if you generalize to arbitrary bases, B, like base 6, base 20 and base 60. my personal take on this is it smells like something cludged by an AI with strings of prompts. let the real Ravi appear and speak.
@@rhsolved mate what are you talking about, you are talking about an unsolved problem in complex analysis, how the hell is what is effectively 1 = 1 relevant? have you lost your mind? Do you know what complex analysis is? Do you know what the cauchy residue theorem is for example? Do you know what a holomorphic function is? Have you dare i say ever taken a college maths course?
@@rhsolved it's not an opinion it's facts. if you want to prove your demonstration is right and not bogus, use proof solvers and share the code. This way, proof can be factually checked without holes.
Why don’t you do the hard work to disprove Ravis work instead of telling him the official process. He is not part of your officialdom and has no need for it.
@@alfredomoreira6761Ramanujan was told the same thing by bureaucrats and academicians and it slowed him down. Do you think the Indian inventors of zero and calculators of pi went through peer review? Did Euler? Bloody hell.
@@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386 Did Euler or Ramanujan have computers and proof checking software? Obviously, Euler and Ramanujan went through peer review at first. Each day, alleged proofs of Riemann hypothesis are posted on math exchange and absolutely nobody has the time to read all that, even if that means that a proof of rh goes unnoticed
No link to the video mentioned. The link in the description is to a site selling papers for money with a subscription. Definitely not subscribing. Likely AI generated sh*t content. Down-voted.
Wow this is fascinating.
And also the most AI-written thing I've ever heard.
What a time to be alive.
It's dual meaning. Sounds both positive and negative. Which one I should take.
Is it possible to get your paper, or at least the first 100 pages, in PDF or other printable format, so that I can print them and read them comfortably over a cup of tea?
Thanks.
Sure, you can do that, there is a link in the description you might be asked using your Google account, I have not released my triumph card yet, give a try whether it makes any sense to you, if not wait for the release of finale.
"Hey ChatGPT, please turn Aronofsky's weird 90ies movie "Pi" into a long weird TH-cam clip about the Riemann Hypothesis"
Okay
@GodlessPhilosopher: Where can I find his TH-cam video?
Reply: Surajit Ghosh-Where you are commenting there itself
Q: what does “Where you are commenting there itself” mean?
It does not appear to make sense and where is that video?
??
no@@rhsolved
"You can find his youtube video on youtube" seems to be what that gibberish response means.
@@jimbobago so where is that video? how difficult is that!!
Hey Ravi,
I’ve been checking out your work on the unified zeta function and related ideas, and it's really interesting! I have a few questions and thoughts I hope you can help with:
Unified Zeta Function: How does your version of the zeta function fit with the traditional one? What’s the deal with removing poles and keeping things analytic?
Extended Gamma Function: Can you explain how your extended gamma function connects to the usual gamma function and factorials? Are there cases where it’s different?
Negative Logarithmic Seeds: What’s the idea behind adding negative logarithmic terms to exponential functions? How do they fit into your overall framework?
Cyclic Numbers: How does your work shed new light on cyclic numbers? Any cool new properties or insights?
Euler’s Identity and Rotation: How does your take on Euler’s identity and number rotation go beyond the usual stuff? Any practical examples or results?
Looking forward to hearing more about these!
Thanks!
Hmm
I’ve been checking out your work on the unified zeta function and related ideas, and it's really interesting! I have a few questions and thoughts I hope you can help with: Unified Zeta Function: How does your version of the zeta function fit with the traditional one? The traditional one is analytic bcoz my zeta function works as a harmonic conjugate to it with domain =1,What’s the deal with removing poles and keeping things analytic? Removing poles was required to examine the zeros. Eventually the unified zeta (Euler+Riemann+Surajit) function become an entire function. Extended Gamma Function: Can you explain how your extended gamma function connects to the usual gamma function and factorials? Are there cases where it’s different? Extended gamma functions slides to negative factorials, on the way traditional gamma poles get removed and we get a triangular inverse kind of relation between the gamma variants and their periodical harmonic conjugates. If you don’t see the unification then it may appear different, but once you see the unification you can use this functions interchangeably, even you can change the gamma calculators code to add the additional domains it work for. Negative Logarithmic Seeds: What’s the idea behind adding negative logarithmic terms to exponential functions? How do they fit into your overall framework? I guess you talk about 1/e + ln(ln(2)) ~ 0, there is no negative logarithm in this, it’s the logarithmic results bringing the negative sign to make an additive inverse. I used ln(2) as the definition for imaginary number I and saw it’s seeds can grow into big trees naturally. Cyclic Numbers: How does your work shed new light on cyclic numbers? Any cool new properties or insights? Euler’s Identity and Rotation: How does your take on Euler’s identity and number rotation go beyond the usual stuff? Any practical examples or results? Looking forward to hearing more about these! Thanks! Once you set the rotator in the place of imaginary number iota then it keeps on rotating outward.For example e^22, e^33, I derived this numbers using just few fundamental physical constants.
@@rhsolved Hey! I looked through your summary and noticed a few issues. The unified zeta function being described as a “harmonic conjugate” with domain \(\leq 1\) is confusing because that term usually doesn’t apply to the zeta function in this way. Also, the idea of removing poles to make the function entire seems a bit off from the usual method since the traditional zeta function has poles and is analytically continued. The extended gamma function handling negative factorials and removing poles sounds unconventional and needs more clarity. Adding negative logarithms to exponentials and linking this to imaginary numbers isn’t entirely clear, especially the role of \(\ln(2)\). You mentioned new insights into cyclic numbers but didn’t provide specifics, so it’s hard to see what’s new. Lastly, using physical constants to get numbers like \(e^{22}\) and \(e^{33}\) is intriguing but needs more explanation on how they relate to Euler’s identity.
@@pushkarlokhande9238 you really have same name and ethnicity[ assuming Lokhande means your Maharashtrian]. a rare occurrence indeed
@pushkar-tm5wi could you please download the paper from the link given in description
Where can I find his TH-cam video?
Where you are commenting there itself
@@rhsolvedok, but where is it tho?
@@GerhardTreibheitit’s this video.
I started watching the video, but I found it too much of a social background mood swing and sensations are coming style. You talk about a guy, Ravi who found a proof, you describe how he is not a mathematician but engages openly with the community, all while you present a TeX document that is apparently your work.
Are you Ravi? If not, what is this paper you are presenting without explaining anything you (or somebody?) wrote in this paper? How is the paper related to Ravi and how are you related to either? Where is the link to Ravi's TH-cam video that as you say went viral?
This was promising, the first 15s, but it grows to look like the usual YT nonsense...
Ravi is Microsoft Ravi the Indian TTS guy, the paper is mine and I am Surajit, I borrowed Ravis name to cook this YT nonsense so that my paper gets it's deserved viewing.
How i contact to you , i have some doubt
Write it down in your comments, I will try to clear it.
i could not spare enough time to delve further. i think the results will come quicker if you generalize to arbitrary bases, B, like base 6, base 20 and base 60. my personal take on this is it smells like something cludged by an AI with strings of prompts. let the real Ravi appear and speak.
Okay noted.
alright man 1 = 0.5e^(ln(2)) 😆what no way a highschooler couldve told you that 50:56
You are my first viewer to show courage to accept the proposal and openly express your agreement. Thank you for bold stand.
@@rhsolved mate what are you talking about, you are talking about an unsolved problem in complex analysis, how the hell is what is effectively 1 = 1 relevant? have you lost your mind? Do you know what complex analysis is? Do you know what the cauchy residue theorem is for example? Do you know what a holomorphic function is? Have you dare i say ever taken a college maths course?
I read bits and pieces of the linked paper. The proposal of "Simplex" numbers is deranged
It appears so, but it's simple and elegant for numerical evaluation of complex numbers.
You did not prove anyhing. It's not peer reviewed, it's not published and validated by peers. The internet is filled with wrong proofs everywhere.
Okay thanks for your opinion
@@rhsolved it's not an opinion it's facts. if you want to prove your demonstration is right and not bogus, use proof solvers and share the code. This way, proof can be factually checked without holes.
Why don’t you do the hard work to disprove Ravis work instead of telling him the official process. He is not part of your officialdom and has no need for it.
@@alfredomoreira6761Ramanujan was told the same thing by bureaucrats and academicians and it slowed him down. Do you think the Indian inventors of zero and calculators of pi went through peer review? Did Euler? Bloody hell.
@@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386 Did Euler or Ramanujan have computers and proof checking software? Obviously, Euler and Ramanujan went through peer review at first. Each day, alleged proofs of Riemann hypothesis are posted on math exchange and absolutely nobody has the time to read all that, even if that means that a proof of rh goes unnoticed
SO! WHERE IS THE VIDEO!!!? provide the link! otherwise I will ignore you as your reply does not make any sense.
It's me only using Microsoft Ravi for impersonification.
@@rhsolved where is the video link that you refer to?
Search dear mathematicians
@@rhsolvedwher is the link?
delusion
But reality.
No link to the video mentioned. The link in the description is to a site selling papers for money with a subscription. Definitely not subscribing. Likely AI generated sh*t content. Down-voted.
You just need a account maybe no money involved.
No good. Don't waste your time on this.
Perhaps you missed it totally, thanks for your suggestion.
did you claim your million dollar price yet?
I disclaimed it in the description.
Say what now? 😳
I was just working on it yesterday!
#196883 #163 #432 #64mod900
So you found some relevance.