@@rhsolved ur gonna have to give more than that for a justification. Just because its in a unit circle doesnt mean u can break the laws of multiplication and exponentiation. In addition, what does degrees of 30 have to do with anything relating to the distribution of primes? Also the concept of simplex numbers by replacing i with a wholly real number ln(2) doesnt make any sense, its not a valid way to convert complex numbers to real as its probably not even possible at all. How can you even claim that ln(2) may be a type of imaginary number? U also claim that ravi found ln(2) to be special as 1/(e+ln(ln(2))) is almost 0 but this is not true, on the calculator it comes out to be 0.425 which is not close at all. Again another mistake is ur claim that Lychrel numbers do not exist as a theorem on page 101. This is again false as Lychrel numbers, through a simple google search are shown to exist. This "paper" is littered with mistakes and you either clearly do not know what ur doing or u r just a very dedicated troll, and this isnt ever going to be accepted by anyone with a basic education in mathematics
@@rhsolved i attempted 1/e +ln(ln(2)) it came out to be 0.00136652058 which is not close enough to 0 in mathematical terms to be anything special. Please address the rest of my concerns as they are just a few among the huge number of mistakes in ur "proofs"
Two decimal place, and the next trailing digits 13.68 you have seen coming age of the universe may be, .68 in dark energy % or hubble tension may, think overnight and come up with your best story, if you crack a good story backed by mathematical data then you will find your answers
I have a few questions. Do you speak English, or do you use a translator? Also, is chatgpt used to make these videos? Anyways, I kind of feel bad for you; you don't really understand mathematics and you have difficulty understanding English so it's hard for anyone to tell you what your mistakes were. By the way, did you make those weird "surajitghosh" fan accounts to talk to yourself with? That's actually kind of sad, I hope you aren't too lonely to the point where you fake your fans.
By chance the fans name also my name, may be that's why he became fan, I am very much happy with my understanding of mathematics,the way you are attacking like this means you are not a professional or a green monster kind of egoistic guy so better not to waste both of our time.
@rhsolved I don't mean to insult you, I'm just afraid my messages are getting lost in translation. That's why I asked those questions. I was not trying to attack you, I was just trying to provide insight on why you've become misled and why nobody can explain your mistakes properly. I'd like to have a real conversation, but because we are fluent in different languages, I don't think it's possible. I hope you understand.
FIRST PLZ PIN I LOVE YOU SURAJITTT U ARE MY EEVRYTHING!!!
I LOVE YOU TOO MR SURAJIT!!!
Thank you 👍
10:45 the steps to equate the theta and r terms in the "proof" are completely wrong and straight up not allowed
Because we are in unit circle it's allowed
@@rhsolved ur gonna have to give more than that for a justification. Just because its in a unit circle doesnt mean u can break the laws of multiplication and exponentiation.
In addition, what does degrees of 30 have to do with anything relating to the distribution of primes?
Also the concept of simplex numbers by replacing i with a wholly real number ln(2) doesnt make any sense, its not a valid way to convert complex numbers to real as its probably not even possible at all. How can you even claim that ln(2) may be a type of imaginary number?
U also claim that ravi found ln(2) to be special as 1/(e+ln(ln(2))) is almost 0 but this is not true, on the calculator it comes out to be 0.425 which is not close at all.
Again another mistake is ur claim that Lychrel numbers do not exist as a theorem on page 101. This is again false as Lychrel numbers, through a simple google search are shown to exist.
This "paper" is littered with mistakes and you either clearly do not know what ur doing or u r just a very dedicated troll, and this isnt ever going to be accepted by anyone with a basic education in mathematics
So big list, I will attempt 1 , try 1/e + ln(ln(2))~0
@@rhsolved i attempted 1/e +ln(ln(2)) it came out to be 0.00136652058 which is not close enough to 0 in mathematical terms to be anything special.
Please address the rest of my concerns as they are just a few among the huge number of mistakes in ur "proofs"
Two decimal place, and the next trailing digits 13.68 you have seen coming age of the universe may be, .68 in dark energy % or hubble tension may, think overnight and come up with your best story, if you crack a good story backed by mathematical data then you will find your answers
The troll is back with his bullshit proof 💀
No comments
I have a few questions. Do you speak English, or do you use a translator? Also, is chatgpt used to make these videos? Anyways, I kind of feel bad for you; you don't really understand mathematics and you have difficulty understanding English so it's hard for anyone to tell you what your mistakes were. By the way, did you make those weird "surajitghosh" fan accounts to talk to yourself with? That's actually kind of sad, I hope you aren't too lonely to the point where you fake your fans.
By chance the fans name also my name, may be that's why he became fan, I am very much happy with my understanding of mathematics,the way you are attacking like this means you are not a professional or a green monster kind of egoistic guy so better not to waste both of our time.
@rhsolved I don't mean to insult you, I'm just afraid my messages are getting lost in translation. That's why I asked those questions. I was not trying to attack you, I was just trying to provide insight on why you've become misled and why nobody can explain your mistakes properly. I'd like to have a real conversation, but because we are fluent in different languages, I don't think it's possible. I hope you understand.
@moneteezee I am not using translator and you can ask your question through your translator I will catch it.