Failed proof because of undefined 0/0 .

Joined: 1:20 PM - Nov 09, 2005

1:34 PM - Nov 09, 2005 #1

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)
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

7:01 PM - Nov 09, 2005 #2

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"?
Quote
Share

Joined: 1:38 PM - Jun 18, 2005

7:58 PM - Nov 09, 2005 #3

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.

You "marauding lion" of advanced physics, waxing poetic about yourself again?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/message- ... in+paradox

Quote
Like
Share

AAF
AAF

11:49 PM - Nov 09, 2005 #4

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...?
Quote
Share

Joined: 1:38 PM - Jun 18, 2005

12:25 AM - Nov 10, 2005 #5

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:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/m ... in+paradox

Quote
Like
Share