ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The comedy just goes on....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Riemann hypothesis, the most beautiful hypothesis
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
The comedy just goes on....
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
imagine how good and professional editor or president I will be!
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Exactly because it's a scientific paper. It's supposed to be about the subject, not the person who wrote it.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I'd rather not, if it's all the same to you.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But I am suffering from rejections. If I add some advices and principles, then I have the chance.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But the fact is, that if I delete the CV, then you will find another reasons to reject the paper.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You don't have a chance with papers like this anyway but adding the whinging and your secondary school gold medal really isn't going to help. If you don't want to be rejected you have to get a grip and go back to how you were thinking when you were accepted (assuming your CV is real).
It also would show the distribution of prime numbers as a pattern I think. Neat.
What's your obsession with the Riemann Hypothesis?
How does this tie into? Well whatever your trying to say.
That's a bad thing?
That might be the problem. Science isn't about personality.
You are allowing yourself to suffer. You could just you know, not suffer...
So the CV isn't helping one way or another, because your premise is wrong.
1. Probably
2. No.
What you gave isn't even *close* to a proof. Feeble is an accurate descriptor.
Well, that is what it means to be a limit.
Maybe you need to study a bit of real analysis? epsilon-delta proofs?
Because it is irrelevant to the substance of the paper. Do you see this type of thing in any other scientific paper?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
May it be that you get rejected because the editors and people who read your paper see more of you than what the subject actually is about?
It is the message that is important not the messenger
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
If x \to 1 of f(x) is limit, then what is value of the limit? It is not sufficient to write x \to 1, one need to show the value of the limit. It is f(1).
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I am very talented. Please do not doubt that, because it is not friendly.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I am no scientist so I can not speak of your talent or not, but from what those scientists who are in RF it seems like they disagreeing with you.
And maybe your message is not as good made as you believe your self?