questfortruth
Well-Known Member
It does not help me to believe, that I am stupid. It is more productive to believe, that the world is sick.
-
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
Only if the function is continuous. There are many functions for which the limit is NOT f(1).
And this does not apply to limits to infinity.
It might be more helpful to believe you need to learn more and think deeper before you write a nonsense paper that will get rejected.
You may well be intelligent. But the papers you produce don't show that.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
The limit x\to 1 of the function 1/(x-1) is equal to infinity. lim_{x\to 1} 1/(x-1)=infinity.
Careful, from one side it is +infinity, from the other side it is -infinity.
And, once again, for f(x)=1/(x-1), f(1) is not even defined. So the limit does not equal the function value.
As another example, if f(x)=(x^2 -1)/(x-1), then the lim_x-->1 f(x) =2. But f(1) is not defined.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
They are nearly perfect. But the problem is spiritual. It is curse. My father has cursed me, he has said: you mean nothing.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Not to try to offend you, but do you believe you can not be wrong or do wrong?
Sorry, but they are nowhere close to perfect. They usually show a complete lack of understanding of the topic.
The only 'curse' here is what you do to editors.
I strongly advise taking some basic proof classes (like a beginning analysis class).
So you want to prove that you mean something?
That doesn't require any earth shattering, science or spiritual revelations. Only accepting and understanding your place in the Cosmos.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I can be wrong at something, but it is not healthy for me to believe, that I am wrong, if the mistake is not found yet. I need see the mistake, then I will be sure, that I am wrong. Now, I suspect, that there is a mistake, but I am not sure.
VoidCat
Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
Well I worship a Lucifer altho maybe not a Satan(thanks for reminding to update my religion after this)...and Jesus is someone I don't honor but still doesn't change the fact Im not likely to take you seriously if your papers are constantly rejected.
Well if you want to include a bit about yourself in a sciencey paper...try explaining your qualifications and why the reader should trust your conclusions rather then pointing out you been rejected by many scientists. All that tell me is you are unqualified
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Our place is in graveyard.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Would you not want the mistakes to be told to you so you can correct them?
If you sending papers with errors you can not see you self, that may be the reason you are rejected all the time
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
O.K. Be blessed.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But nobody tells me, where the mistakes are. The rejection letters have zero information.
Luckely, I am finding the mistakes by myself.
What's this have to do with proving one's life has meaning?
What's this have to do with countering your Father calling you useless? That seems important to you, and it would be to me too.
OK, in this paper, the first mistakes are in lines 24-27 on the first page. On line 25, you misunderstood what your reference [1] said and the conclusion between lines 25 and 26 is unfounded. The conclusion between 26 and 27 that the limit is excluded was not proved. And that this has anything to do with RH as claimed in line 27 is wrong.
So you make 3 mistakes in as many lines. The mistakes continue onto the next page, with lines 2 and 3 being completely wrong.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
If there is no life after death, the life gives me no joy.
Again, the mistakes are basic enough that a simple course in real analysis would show them to you.
All you are doing is wasting your time and that of the editors.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Does not the other scientists in RF give you or at lease gave you in the past clear indication of what was wrong with your papers?
And if they could not point at one or two things, it could mean all of it was seen or understood to be wrong according to other science?