# Failed proof because of undefined 0/0 .

Joined: 1:20 PM - Nov 09, 2005
Subject:
Submissions List (Submitted Papers)
Fayez Fok al-Adeh : Updated Mar. 18, 2005: How to Prove the Riemann Hypothesis (PDF)

I havent checked (1) till (75) but its not necessary because (76) till (81) is wrong.

The argumentation there is as follows:
a=lim(x->0)(0.5+x)
=> it's allowed to set a=0.5+x
before the lim for the whole expression (80), ((1/a)-2)/x^(1-a)), is calculated.
This means that a relation between a und x is set which hasn't existed before.

The Independency of a and x was given up without any proof of it's unimportance.
And such a proof has to include the correctness of lim(a->0.5)(x->0)... = lim(x->0)(a->0.5)... .
Point (80) shows, that the sequence, first a->0.5 and second x->0 or
first x->0 and second a->0.5 is important because of different results.
Therefore the Independency has to be kept !

Another example of a relation between a and x which includes a=0.5 <=> x=0 :
With x=((1/a)-2)^(1/(1-a)) we get at point (80) the result 1 on the contrary to 0
in the proof at point (81), the continuation of (80), with a=0.5+x .

We can get any result, which we like to have: 0 or 1 or infinit. Or whatever.
We only need to change the relation between x and a.

More general:
a/b is not defined, when a->0 and b->0 are independent of each other.
The definition - and therefore the value - of a/b depends on the relation between a and b.
0/0 doesnt mean, that we can use any value we need.
0/0 means, that we have an undefined expression, a condition is required.

Winfried Aschauer (9th of November 2005)

Anonymous
Anonymous
The attempt made by Dr Sfarti to demystify the Clock Paradox is very similar to the famous riddle "ANSWER WITH YES OR NO: IS YOUR LAST WORD NO"?

Joined: 1:38 PM - Jun 18, 2005
Subject:
Submissions List (Submitted Papers)
Fayez Fok al-Adeh : Updated Mar. 18, 2005: How to Prove the Riemann Hypothesis (PDF)

I havent checked (1) till (75) but its not necessary because (76) till (81) is wrong.

The argumentation there is as follows:
a=lim(x->0)(0.5+x)
=> it's allowed to set a=0.5+x
before the lim for the whole expression (80), ((1/a)-2)/x^(1-a)), is calculated.
This means that a relation between a und x is set which hasn't existed before.

The Independency of a and x was given up without any proof of it's unimportance.
And such a proof has to include the correctness of lim(a->0.5)(x->0)... = lim(x->0)(a->0.5)... .
Point (80) shows, that the sequence, first a->0.5 and second x->0 or
first x->0 and second a->0.5 is important because of different results.
Therefore the Independency has to be kept !

Another example of a relation between a and x which includes a=0.5 <=> x=0 :
With x=((1/a)-2)^(1/(1-a)) we get at point (80) the result 1 on the contrary to 0
in the proof at point (81), the continuation of (80), with a=0.5+x .

We can get any result, which we like to have: 0 or 1 or infinit. Or whatever.
We only need to change the relation between x and a.

More general:
a/b is not defined, when a->0 and b->0 are independent of each other.
The definition - and therefore the value - of a/b depends on the relation between a and b.
0/0 doesnt mean, that we can use any value we need.
0/0 means, that we have an undefined expression, a condition is required.

Winfried Aschauer (9th of November 2005)
AAF, looks like you are on the wrong topic, are you spamming the links at random? This is a link on math, a subject that you know nothing about.

AAF
AAF
But is also about the undefined 0/0, which is exactly your mistake in demystifying the Twins paradox.

Is that ok with you, you...mouse...house cat...who takes things at face value...and who rarely suspects unseen boobytraps...?

Joined: 1:38 PM - Jun 18, 2005
You are on the wrong topic, you are spamming links.This is a link about math, leave it alone, you know nothing about 0/0 (how is that rule called in calculus?), you flunked elementary algebra so have the decency and stop the spam.

Looks like you are desperate for attention. I will give you some, oh "marauding lion", self admiring and self embarassing: