Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #425081 > unrolled thread

AP Hypothesis becomes the new era math Riemann Hypothesis-- RH was phony baloney, but AP's has substance

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  AP Hypothesis becomes the new era math Riemann Hypothesis-- RH was phony baloney, but AP's has substance Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 10:44 -0700
    All of Arithmetic is embodied in AP Columns Re: AP Hypothesis becomes the new era math Riemann Hypothesis-- RH was phony baloney, but AP's has substance Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 13:29 -0700
      Parallel lines of Geometry mirror image the Columns of Algebra Re: All of Arithmetic is embodied in AP Columns Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 14:48 -0700
        Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 03:20 +0000

#425081 — AP Hypothesis becomes the new era math Riemann Hypothesis-- RH was phony baloney, but AP's has substance

In the below earlier posts of yesterday, I outline the AP COLUMN. This is new important math, and is the bulk of how the Goldbach conjecture was proven true, that every even number (yes I include 2 as 1+1 when we consider 1 as prime by default) is the sum of two primes. Goldbach is easily proven by the AP Column for example: the number 8

8  0
7  1
6  2
5  3
4  4

You see, these columns to addition and multiplication are unique, and the only place you can find 5x3 is in the 8 column, meaning if 8 = sum of two primes as 8=5+3 did not exist, then the two prime number 3*5= 15 does not exist.

But I am not here to talk about Goldbach, I am here to talk about the Riemann Hypothesis of the 1800s, that thoroughly error filled hypothesis, because in true math, the Negative Numbers do not exist, the Complex Numbers do not exist, the Irrational and Transcendental numbers were phony baloney, and even the concept of "being prime" needed some refurbishing. So in such a state of condition of math where the true numbers that truly exists are the Grid Numbers, in that condition, we throw out all of Old Math on the question of Riemann Hypothesis, much like in medicine where they threw out all of the Humor Theory of medicine-- black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, blood which led to the idiotic leeching of victims not patients. One can honestly say, the Riemann Hypothesis is the modern day version of the Humor theory only in mathematics, not medicine.

So, we throw out the entire Riemann Hypothesis save for a narrow piece of a glimmer of truth-- the idea that the Primes lie on a line, not the 1/2 Real line in the Complex plane phoney baloney. No, nothing like that at all. But rather instead, the PRIMES lie in the AP Columns with never a Outright Division and never a NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms.

So, the modern day proof of AP's Conjecture-- Prove, no prime has a Outright Division and no NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms. Let me give you an example using the composite odd number 21

21   0
20  1
19  2
18  3
17  4
16  5
15  6
14  7
13  8
12  9
11  10

Notice we run first into 18/3 is an Outright Division, then we run into a NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms of 15/6, then we run into another Outright Division 14/7, and finally one more NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms 12/9.

So, the modern day math era is prove AP Conjecture of Primes-- no prime has a Outright Division and no prime has a NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms. This is now the modern day version of the fakery of Riemann Hypothesis. And you can sort of see the glimmering similarity between AP and RH, in that RH was about a 1/2 Real line where all the primes reside, whereas AP's Column now becomes that mythical fake 1/2 Real line for a Column is like a geometry 1/2 line.



Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:33:49 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Conjecture in AP Columns
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 20:33:49 +0000

Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Conjecture in AP Columns

Alright, I have a brand new definition of Prime, that involves AP Columns. And it leaves a conjecture open. 

Now let me display the 9 column and the 21 column 

9   0 
8   1 
7   2 
6   3 full division 
5   4 


21   0 
20   1 
19   2 
18   3  outright division 
17   4 
16   5 
15   6  not coprime, reduce to lowest terms 
14   7  outright division 
13   8 
12   9 not coprime, reduce to lowest terms 
11   10 

So, in the AP Columns of Arithmetic & Algebra, we have two forms of NOT COPRIME, we have the outright-division and we have the reduce to lowest terms. So we have several questions concerning the Prime number in mathematics and the Composite number in mathematics with these AP Columns. 

So, now in a Prime number column there is no outright-division and no reduce to lowest terms, that I can see. But is that true? It is obvious we should not have a prime if any of its sub-additions, let me call a horizontal in the AP columns a subaddition, so to be prime there is No Outright Division of a subaddition. But can there exist a number that has no Outright Division but still have Reduce to Lowest Terms-- not coprime. That is the quandary with this new definition of prime. But it does not stop with Primes, for the question extends to Composites. 

This is why I like the number 21, for it has two Outright Divisions, but two Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. So here the question is, much like primes, can you have a Composite that has no Outright Division but only Reduce to Lowest Terms Division? Is that possible? 

We know 9 has only Outright Division and no Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. Let us check 15. 

15   0 
14   1 
13   2 
12   3 
11   4 
10  5 
9    6 
8    7 

And we see that 15 has both Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Division 9/6 

So, well, I need to know if you can have the possible situation in which there is just Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. I suspect the Conjecture says -- no-- you cannot have Reduce to Lowest Terms all alone without a Outright Division. But I maybe wrong, and that numbers beyond the Infinity Borderline have such species of numbers, and a good reason why those are infinite-numbers where mathematics breaks down and where proofs are never again 100% guaranteed, is because of things like this-- you having numbers that are in a so to speak twilight-zone, reduce to lowest terms but not outright division. 

But, well, there probably is an easy proof that you cannot have reduce-to-lowest-terms alone. For there is a quick immediate proof that all Even Composites have an outright-division, but I see no immediate proof all Odd Composites have an outright-division. I do see, however that the Outright Division comes earlier than the Reduce to Lowest Terms, which maybe the way to prove, you cannot have Reduce to Lowest Terms alone.  Or, well, this maybe the Riemann Hypothesis of the 21st Century, knowing full well that the 1800s Riemann Hypothesis was a fake math conjecture. 

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 22:27:52 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: can a prime or odd composite exist that has just a reduce to lowest
 term ? Re: Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Conjecture in AP Columns
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2018 05:27:53 +0000

can a prime or odd composite exist that has just a reduce to lowest term ? Re: Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Conjecture in AP Columns

Alright, let me display the AP Column of 67 prime that gave me so much troubles before. 


On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 3:33:58 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> Alright, I have a brand new definition of Prime, that involves AP Columns. And it leaves a conjecture open. 
> 
> Now let me display the 9 column and the 21 column 
> 
> 9   0 
> 8   1 
> 7   2 
> 6   3 full division 
> 5   4 
> 
> 
> 21   0 
> 20   1 
> 19   2 
> 18   3  outright division 
> 17   4 
> 16   5 
> 15   6  not coprime, reduce to lowest terms 
> 14   7  outright division 
> 13   8 
> 12   9 not coprime, reduce to lowest terms 
> 11   10 
> 


For 67 we have 

67   0 
66   1 
65   2 
64   3 
63   4 
62   5 
61    6 
60   7 
59   8 
58   9 
57  10 
56  11 
55  12 
54  13 
53  14 
52   15 
51   16 
50   17 
49   18 
48   19 
47   20 
46   21 
45   22 
44   23 
43   24 
42   25 
41   26 
40  27 
39  28 
38  29 
37  30 
36  31 
35  32 
34  33 

And going through I see no Outright division and I see no Coprime to reduce to lowest terms 

So the conjecture I make with this Extended Definition of being Prime-- is there ever the case where a Prime has no Outright division, but still has a coprime to reduce to lowest terms. And also, for the Odd Composites, is there ever a situation where it is composite with no Outright division but Coprimes ready to be reduced to lowest terms? 



> So, in the AP Columns of Arithmetic & Algebra, we have two forms of NOT COPRIME, we have the outright-division and we have the reduce to lowest terms. So we have several questions concerning the Prime number in mathematics and the Composite number in mathematics with these AP Columns. 
> 
> So, now in a Prime number column there is no outright-division and no reduce to lowest terms, that I can see. But is that true? It is obvious we should not have a prime if any of its sub-additions, let me call a horizontal in the AP columns a subaddition, so to be prime there is No Outright Division of a subaddition. But can there exist a number that has no Outright Division but still have Reduce to Lowest Terms-- not coprime. That is the quandary with this new definition of prime. But it does not stop with Primes, for the question extends to Composites. 
> 
> This is why I like the number 21, for it has two Outright Divisions, but two Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. So here the question is, much like primes, can you have a Composite that has no Outright Division but only Reduce to Lowest Terms Division? Is that possible? 
> 
> We know 9 has only Outright Division and no Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. Let us check 15. 
> 
> 15   0 
> 14   1 
> 13   2 
> 12   3 
> 11   4 
> 10  5 
> 9    6 
> 8    7 
> 
> And we see that 15 has both Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Division 9/6 
> 

In odd composites the Outright Division looks to always come first and then any coprimes to reduce to lowest terms come later. In Even Composites the horizontal add shows immediately the number is even such as say 100 

100  0 
99    1 
98    2  outright division 

then later we have coprime reduce to lowest terms 


> So, well, I need to know if you can have the possible situation in which there is just Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. I suspect the Conjecture says -- no-- you cannot have Reduce to Lowest Terms all alone without a Outright Division. But I maybe wrong, and that numbers beyond the Infinity Borderline have such species of numbers, and a good reason why those are infinite-numbers where mathematics breaks down and where proofs are never again 100% guaranteed, is because of things like this-- you having numbers that are in a so to speak twilight-zone, reduce to lowest terms but not outright division. 
> 
> But, well, there probably is an easy proof that you cannot have reduce-to-lowest-terms alone. For there is a quick immediate proof that all Even Composites have an outright-division, but I see no immediate proof all Odd Composites have an outright-division. I do see, however that the Outright Division comes earlier than the Reduce to Lowest Terms, which maybe the way to prove, you cannot have Reduce to Lowest Terms alone.  Or, well, this maybe the Riemann Hypothesis of the 21st Century, knowing full well that the 1800s Riemann Hypothesis was a fake math conjecture. 
> 

Easy to prove that Even Composites all have an outright division. But how to prove that Odd Composites must always have a Outright Division and no odd composite has just a coprime reduce to lowest terms. How to prove no prime cannot have a reduce to lowest term? 

What this new extended definition of Prime does is show us how integral is the concept of coprime along with prime. 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#425090 — All of Arithmetic is embodied in AP Columns Re: AP Hypothesis becomes the new era math Riemann Hypothesis-- RH was phony baloney, but AP's has substance

What these AP Columns are, are the entire structure of a number in terms of addition, multiplication, division, subtraction. By that I mean the past history of a number and in terms of its parts.

So that looking at 10 in Column form

10  0
9   1
8   2
7   3
6   4
5   5

We know 10 is even composite because 8/2 so that you have a trail of 2s, next in 6+2 = 8, next in 4+2 =6. And you know 10 has NonCoprimes of 6/4. As for multiplication 5^2 = 25 comes from 5+5=10. So that the number 25 is deeply connected to the number 10, although in Old Math, there is no connection at all between 5*5 and 5+5. Now in New Math there is a deep connection of 5+3=8 with the number 5*3=15, so here we connect 15 with 8 which never was connected before. So let me call these COLUMN CONNECTIONS, in that I have no better name at the moment. For we see in the 10 Column, that we have 7*3= 21 is deeply connected to the number 10 in the fact of 7+3= 10.

Now those are connections of add and multiply. But there are connections of Add and Divide, for it is only in the 10 Column that you have 8/2 or 6/4 or even 5/5.

Now can the AP Columns bring in subtraction and is subtraction unique to specific columns? Well yes, unique as are all four operations of mathematics is unique to AP Columns, for you will never find 6-4 in any other column. Sure, you find the answer 2 from many different columns but you find 6-4 uniquely in the 10 Column. And another word about subtraction in columns, that tells us, subtraction comes from Column mathematics and not the silly crap that Old Math teaches -- subtraction has no origins-- but exists out of thin air-- popped out of existence. The reason is easy to see-- you cannot subract more than is available.

In Column Arithmetic and Mathematics-- you can never subtract more using the leftside and subtract the rightside of column.

As in 10 column above you can subtract 4 from 6 but never 6 from 4.

So, Arithmetic and Mathematics starts by AP Columns, all of Algebra starts from AP columns.

So now, what is the AP Column Conjecture that is the modern day true conjecture replacing the fake-conjecture of Riemann Hypothesis?

On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 12:44:24 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In the below earlier posts of yesterday, I outline the AP COLUMN. This is new important math, and is the bulk of how the Goldbach conjecture was proven true, that every even number (yes I include 2 as 1+1 when we consider 1 as prime by default) is the sum of two primes. Goldbach is easily proven by the AP Column for example: the number 8
> 
> 8  0
> 7  1
> 6  2
> 5  3
> 4  4
> 
> You see, these columns to addition and multiplication are unique, and the only place you can find 5x3 is in the 8 column, meaning if 8 = sum of two primes as 8=5+3 did not exist, then the two prime number 3*5= 15 does not exist.
> 
> But I am not here to talk about Goldbach, I am here to talk about the Riemann Hypothesis of the 1800s, that thoroughly error filled hypothesis, because in true math, the Negative Numbers do not exist, the Complex Numbers do not exist, the Irrational and Transcendental numbers were phony baloney, and even the concept of "being prime" needed some refurbishing. So in such a state of condition of math where the true numbers that truly exists are the Grid Numbers, in that condition, we throw out all of Old Math on the question of Riemann Hypothesis, much like in medicine where they threw out all of the Humor Theory of medicine-- black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, blood which led to the idiotic leeching of victims not patients. One can honestly say, the Riemann Hypothesis is the modern day version of the Humor theory only in mathematics, not medicine.
> 
> So, we throw out the entire Riemann Hypothesis save for a narrow piece of a glimmer of truth-- the idea that the Primes lie on a line, not the 1/2 Real line in the Complex plane phoney baloney. No, nothing like that at all. But rather instead, the PRIMES lie in the AP Columns with never a Outright Division and never a NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms.
> 

The AP Column Conjecture says-- all primes have no Outright Division and, have no NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms. But, the conjecture does not stop with Primes, but says that all Odd Composites of mathematics have at least one Outright Division (there cannot be an odd composite composed of just NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms). So in this sense, the AP Conjecture is vastly more mature in math content than the piddle paddle obnoxious fakery of Riemann Conjecture.

> So, the modern day proof of AP's Conjecture-- Prove, no prime has a Outright Division and no NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms. Let me give you an example using the composite odd number 21
> 
> 21   0
> 20  1
> 19  2
> 18  3
> 17  4
> 16  5
> 15  6
> 14  7
> 13  8
> 12  9
> 11  10
> 
> Notice we run first into 18/3 is an Outright Division, then we run into a NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms of 15/6, then we run into another Outright Division 14/7, and finally one more NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms 12/9.
> 
> So, the modern day math era is prove AP Conjecture of Primes-- no prime has a Outright Division and no prime has a NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms. This is now the modern day version of the fakery of Riemann Hypothesis. And you can sort of see the glimmering similarity between AP and RH, in that RH was about a 1/2 Real line where all the primes reside, whereas AP's Column now becomes that mythical fake 1/2 Real line for a Column is like a geometry 1/2 line.
> 

There is an easy proof that All Even Numbers obey the AP conjecture because immediately down two horizontals you run into an even number with outright-division, for example 8 +2 in the 10 Column and proving no even number can have just a solo NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms.

But the AP Conjecture requires rolling up the sleeves to prove no odd composite can have a NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms and lacking any Outright Division. To prove a Odd Composite cannot exist on solely a NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms. To prove Primes cannot have either a Outright Division, but also, cannot have a NonCoprime Reduce to Lowest Terms.

So, some may think this AP conjecture is obvious and needs no proof, and some may think, this conjecture is easier than the fake RH. But they be wrong as usual.


Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 


                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425096 — Parallel lines of Geometry mirror image the Columns of Algebra Re: All of Arithmetic is embodied in AP Columns

On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 3:29:42 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> What these AP Columns are, are the entire structure of a number in terms of addition, multiplication, division, subtraction. By that I mean the past history of a number and in terms of its parts.
> 

A remarkable claim for AP Columns, to think all of Algebra and Arithmetic of mathematics comes from AP Column for Algebra is one half of mathematics and to think that placing numbers into columns is the embodiment of all of Algebra and Arithmetic. Can we see anything like this in geometry?

Well there is of course the two parallel lines of geometry.

|  |
|  |
|  |

And parallel lines leads to perpendicular lines

|__

And in Algebra, Arithmetic, there is the Peano Axioms that gives rise to Numbers, and their algebra is basically just N+1

But now, say you created numbers from 1 then adding 1, then adding more 1, the successor axiom of N+1. Say you created the counting numbers, 1,2,3,4,5,6,....

But you do not have any operators of multiply, divide, subtract. You do have addition for you used that in creating the Counting Numbers. But now that you created them, you really have no multiplication no division no subtraction.

So say you then have Columns of 0 with 1,2,3,.....

LIke our 10 column

10   0
9    1
8    2
7    3
6    4
5    5

Now, let there be multiplication, division and subtraction in a world where none existed before. Up until the Column, only addition existed along with Counting Numbers 1,2,3,4, etc. Now you added the number 0 and placed the Counting Numbers into a Column. And now exists not only addition but multiplication, division, subtraction.

Think of the Column as Geometry's two parallel lines. Think of the horizontal in the column as addition and think of the horizontal as perpendicular in geometry. So in a sense the column is a graph, although its axes are parallel instead of perpendicular. Think of the Column as the precursor to a Coordinate System Graph of functions.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425103 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>Boston's std 26 year lond stalking shitheads kibo,Moroney says,Richard E. T

It is strange that Archie repeatedly asks me to reply to his posts like
this. I guess it's like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum to get the
attention of his mother. Bad attention is better than no attention!

It's a good thing that I enjoy responding to Archie's requests like this. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web