Hello fellow humans...educate thyself, come in, come in...

[jack buck]

Hola, bonjour, buon giorno, and hello.

 

Jack Buck here wanting to introduce myself.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Half-a-page of timecube ramblings about prime numbers does not make a "deep logic paper" about Riemann.

 

Oh yeah: Welcome to Hypography. If you're interested in science, you'll find lots of it here.

 

TFS

[jack buck]

"Half-a-page of timecube ramblings about prime numbers does not make a "deep logic paper" about Riemann.

 

Oh yeah: Welcome to Hypography. If you're interested in science, you'll find lots of it here.

 

TFS"

 

Well FaithfulStone, perhaps you are right.

 

If you consider the author's suggestion that Zero (nothingness) is responsible for all numbers' existence via a concentration and reflection of infinity as seen in the solutions to Riemann's equation where the 1/2 would represent this duality as being light and fool-hardy logic, then you must have some much deeper logic to share...please enlighten.

 

jack buck

[TheFaithfulStone]

I'm not a mathematician by any stretch of the imagination, and my understanding of metric tensors is poor at best.

 

But things like "Zero is strongest number followed by the primes."

 

And "Zero is the only number that can contain infinity."

 

And your "Zero is responsible for all number's existence."

 

And "1/2 would represent this duality"

 

That, and the the things he's saying on the other page. They don't make any sense.

 

TFS

[jack buck]

TFS: "I'm not a mathematician by any stretch of the imagination, and my understanding of metric tensors is poor at best."

 

TFS,

 

I'll be blunt, mentioning that there is plenty of science to be had here and then starting off as you did leaves me wondering what validity this forum must hold.

 

If you want to voice an opinion fine, but please don't insult me or that author with pedantic statements such as, "They don't make any sense."

 

I will not stand for statements that are not backed up with a logical argument as to why any given individual's theory is illogical or invalid.

 

If you don't think that the duality between nothingness and existence can be tied to Bernhard Riemann's work on the spacing of primes numbers throughout all numbers then you must by force give a logical argument defeating this principle!

 

Furthermore, when quoting a previous post at least get the punctuation correct:

You: "Zero is responsible for all number's existence."

Me: "Zero (nothingness) is responsible for all numbers' existence..."

 

Context is everything, if I had intended to say "number's" in the singular form I would have. Perhaps your concept of depth is limited to your grasp on integral subtleties that define context.

 

jack buck

[Tormod]

I'll be blunt, mentioning that there is plenty of science to be had here and then starting off as you did leaves me wondering what validity this forum must hold.

 

If comments from *one* of our members make you wonder about the validity of our forums, I suggest you read up on "statistics".

 

Perhaps your concept of depth is limited to your grasp on integral subtleties that define context.

 

Also, if you feel insulted, do not attack back. Read our rules.

 

Welcome to Hypography. :shrug:

[TheFaithfulStone]

You're right, I was insulting and I apologize.

 

Zero (nothingness) is responsible for all numbers' existence via a concentration and reflection of infinity as seen in the solutions to Riemann's equation where the 1/2 would represent this duality

 

I don't understand how you get that from the Riemann hypothesis and zeta equation. I don't see how it relates to tensor calculus at all.

 

Please explain what you mean.

 

TFS

[jack buck]

The website in question continues by discussing a probable seismic moment of the universe equaling zero, stating that the geometry of the universe must be spherical (read density parameters/ Omega >1) in order to support the simple advancement of life. Tensor calculus/ Riemann's hypothesis could then be understood as a graphical description of the atomic boundaries of any mass, with prime numbers displaying the internal returns to stability as seen in all frequencies/ waves.

 

Many have wondered about the question of form versus existence and number theory walks that fine line. If true, then the zeta function would be a graphical display of stable frequencies felt by any/all orbiting masses.

 

Without defending his theories any further, I do suggest that anyone interested read them thoroughly, his writing is packed with double entendres that always seem to lead to relevant conclusions. It seems as if each essay is connected to the next in some pattern that I am drawn to. That is all.

 

jack buck

[TheFaithfulStone]

The website in question continues by discussing a probable seismic moment of the universe equaling zero,

 

Seismic moment is a geology term, and I don't understand how it applies to cosmology.

 

Furthermore, seismic moment is a measure of the energy released during an earthquake. Why would it be 0 for the entire universe?

 

And yes, I read the webpage, or I tried - and besides the gratuitous superscript, it STILL didn't make any sense.

 

TFS

[jack buck]

If comments from *one* of our members make you wonder about the validity of our forums, I suggest you read up on "statistics".

 

 

Dear Tormod,

 

I understand the rules of engagement regarding your website.

 

I did have a question about your comment of "statistics."

 

Did you intend to send me via hyperlink to a definition about statistics in order to insult me?

 

Given that your avatar indicates you as the senior editor I would hope not.

 

In any case, given that membership to hypography is accessible to anyone with an internet connection and modest computer knowledge, it seems impossible to vouch for the collective intelligence of the group beyond these parameters; so suggesting that the statistics of membership numbers and volume of posts indicates valid science seems like thin logic.

 

While the goal of providing a forum to spread the love of science is indeed commendable and worthwhile, the parameters of member commentary that can be construed as science are not strict enough to use these statistics as a point of validation.

 

Not all that long ago, the majority of the world once believed the world was flat. Would you say these people were statistically right?

 

You also seemed to think I was attacking TFS, I disagree.

 

Understandably I am now going to be considered a thorn in hypography's side, but logically speaking I have never attacked anyone but I have been attacked.

 

In a logical argument if both sides continue to construct logic arguments, meaning that they make no statements without having a logical foundation to back them up, then no attack can be made. However, it is an insult to disagree without crafting a complete argument to support your position.

 

My commentary was based upon TFS's lack of logical commentary support. If my argument backing up my disagreement with TFS seemed harsh I'm afraid you'll have to blame Logic not me. You must admit, that my statement , "Context is everything, if I had intended to say "number's" in the singular form I would have. Perhaps your concept of depth is limited to your grasp on integral subtleties that define context," is logically true and as such, is not insulting in the least.

 

My arguments were scientifically honorable and logically sound. Making ammends for the sake of a lesser argument is foolhardy and will not advance science in the least.

 

Sincerely,

 

jack buck

 

P.S. Since InfiniteNow claimed I was spamming, I have removed the web address of the work I was discussing.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Please don't get flamed-up about this jack buck.

No one is here to attack you.

 

If you simply follow the rules, and act in a manner appropriate for an educational website, you will find that you will be most welcome here. :hihi:

[TheFaithfulStone]

[deleted]

 

Because I wasn't very nice.

 

TFS