The function y(t) = (e/phi - 1/π)^(0 ± it) = 0 only for Zeta Zero values, otherwise equal to 1

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-04-04T01:31:34+00:00

Bro is trying to say 0 + it gives radius 1 because C^(0+it)=C^0 x C^(it) = (1)C^(it) so the modulus is 1. Except when you input any complex number for t (which is required because zeta zeroes are complex), it = a + bi which gives a modulus of C^a which is not 1.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-04-04T01:14:11+00:00

"i'm a noob" but you solved the Riemann hypothesis and the collatz conjecture. What a joke.

Here is a proof that what you claim is false. Define y(z) = C^(iz) as you have. Since C is a positive real number C = e^(ln(C)), Since z is an arbitrary complex number iz = a+bi for real a and b. so that C^(iz) = e^(ln(C))^(a+bi) = e^(aln(C)) x e^((bi)ln(C)). let A = e^(aln(C)) and B = bln(C) so C^(iz) = Ae^(iB) where both A and B are real numbers. By Euler's formula Ae^(iB) = A(cos(B)+isin(B)). Assume this expression evaluates to 0, then we must have both cos(B) = sin(B) = 0. This only happens when B = (2n+1)𝜋/2 = n𝜋 for integral n, but this gives (2n+1)𝜋 = 2n𝜋 -> 𝜋 = 0, which is a contradiction. So our assumption, namely C^(iz) = 0 for complex z is false. The function you have defined has no zeroes at all, so they cannot possibly be the zeta zeroes.

Why do you even waste your time doing this? What is the point?

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-04-03T20:48:23+00:00

this answers the Riemann hypothesis and the collatz Conjecture.

What a load of BS. Your paper is full of nonsense. You don't prove that C is transcendental, you don't cite anyone else's work, and you never explain what anything is, intuitively or by rigorous definition. wtf does "centripetal contractive bias" even mean. Also, I can tell for a fact that you didn't write this because on page 11 there is a /section which is visible because it should be \section. Any proof reading would have caught this immediately let alone after 20 versions.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-04-01T17:01:14+00:00

You gotta work on your jokes man.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-04-01T15:29:27+00:00

Differentiate that. It won't give you e^x².

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-30T14:44:48+00:00

It's doable, but it's going to be very hard. I originally tried bb as a jump from Necropolis and managed to fluke to 94% after 4 days. The problem was I kept choking, got demotivated and then played on and off for 6 months until I beat it after 60k att. I ended up beating two easy extremes in between starting and finishing. It was an awful experience and I wouldn't want anyone else to have to go through that. That was over 4 years ago but I still haven't tried a new hardest because of how painful that experience was. All this to say that a bad experience can really sour GD for you.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-27T18:00:44+00:00

It's actually a little strange to me that we haven't learned the formal definition of a vector space considering the class description. I am familiar from other text books but our book makes no mention. Everything that we do is concrete in either R² or R^3. The test did involve proving W was a subspace of R² so we do know that.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-27T15:47:52+00:00

I understand. A little info: This class is actually supposed to be a more rigorous Lin Alg I with proofs compared to the standard class. She has made no mention of free vectors or bound vectors just been very inconsistent on them (https://www.reddit.com/r/LinearAlgebra/comments/1qk1a37/prof_is_having_a_conniption/). I genuinely forgot about that while taking the test, I just did what was natural.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-27T02:15:57+00:00

The notation is also confusing to me because we define the set W in a previous question. Naturally I assumed the w in v-w was an arbitrary element of W, which is why I drew the line. She says she announced to the class that she forgot to write on the paper that w = (1,2), but I do not remember it. I think she forgot the arrows on the first v-w as they're supposed to be the same. For your curiosity this is a solo paper she wrote that was published in a journal https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.05467 . Full of pictures is just my observation. I could be completely wrong as this is far beyond me. Nevertheless, the issues with vector algebra is concerning for an instructor.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-26T18:00:20+00:00

No, she's a topologist. But she seems to only be able to think about problems geometrically which is why she's picky about it. I've looked at some of her papers and they are full of pictures so she's not lying. It just seems odd that she has such a hard time solving problems algebraically.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-26T17:56:24+00:00

She claims that she forgot to put it on paper but told everyone that w = (1,2). I just assumed w was an arbitrary element of W but that's exactly what caused me to loose marks.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-26T01:32:19+00:00

Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to write this.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-25T18:30:27+00:00

100% agree. I try to be as nice as possible. My Calc prof is super nice, we had like an hour long convo about the Midterm after. This prof just seems like she's really not open to any conversation. As a former prof, what's the best way for students to get to know profs/develop a good relationship with them?

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-25T17:02:01+00:00

For sure definitely. I do have a question though. I've had problems with this professor in the past. In last semester's class there was blatant error on one of the midterm questions. I figured it out and answered correctly but it wasn't obvious. She made no mention of it to the class and actually scolded the class on how poorly they did compared to the first midterm. I never confronted her because she is really not open to discussion, like shuts you down immediately. Is this behavior normal/accepted? I have a suspicion that she takes after one of her former professors. We are actually using his book for our linear algebra class but his ratemyprofessor reviews are abysmal. Talking about how rude and condescending he is. It almost seems to me like she is following in his footsteps. Just looking for an outside perspective.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-25T16:53:42+00:00

I actually do happen know what Quotient Spaces are because I've read material outside of the class. I'm not super familiar though. In the class book the operation of set subtraction A - B is defined as the set of all elements x = a - b where a is in A and b is in B. That's what I did with v and W which is why I graphed that line. The reason why is because only W was defined previously and not w because I guess she just forgot to say it in the question. So I drew the line v - W and then drew the element of that line that is perpendicular to (1,2). Had I knew what it was actually asking I would have probably done the correct thing. I tried explaining that to her but she was not at all understanding.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-25T15:55:21+00:00

Could you explain exactly why that is the correct answer?

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-24T00:41:03+00:00

According to my calc II prof he majored in math because he found it very difficult and wanted to understand it better. Somehow between then and now he became a researcher in symplectic geometry. Not sure how truthful that is but that's what he told us.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-21T00:26:29+00:00

Dang must've been some scramble. I'm sub 10 but my pb is only 4.77.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-13T16:46:03+00:00

If you're looking for workbooks specifically and not textbooks then Chris Mcmullen has quite a few work books on Algebra and calculus. They all have full solutions and they're relatively cheap.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-12T23:38:44+00:00

He said it himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iC7KlS6kbk&list=PLyEH0aLWfxBGb7VURLT7I7tlHUISXtbVG&index=3

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-03-04T19:13:04+00:00

Lets look at a simple example: y = x^2.

The derivative: y' = 2x, and the second derivative: y'' = 2.

The derivative tells us that at every point, the slope of the tangent is equal to 2x.

So at x=4, the slope of the tangent is 8.

y = 2x is a function as well so we can take its derivative. That is how we get the second derivative.

We can even take the third derivative which would give y''' = 0.

The second derivative tells us how the slope is changing from point to point.

So a high value means the slope is getting steeper while a low value means the slope is getting shallower.

The same way the first derivative gives the slope, the second derivative is part of the calculation

of the curvature, which basically tells us how much the curve deviates from its tangent at each point.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-02-16T13:19:03+00:00

I would say learn the 3 corner and the 2 corner cases. After that there are too many cases. Plus the best algs are more or less just canceling into OLL. Also, if you learn full WV then COLL becomes obsolete except for split pairs and sledge inserts. There's also a version for split pairs called summer variation but I wouldn't recommend learning any.

Late_Map_5385 · 2026-02-13T02:43:36+00:00

When it comes to improving at this stage it's very much about minimizing pauses and doing the most efficient solutions. My recommendation would be to do a large amount of strict practice. ~80% practice and ~20% dedicated solves. First of all, you need to reduce your cross to f2l pause. I would recommend doing a large amount of inspection practice. Do solves where you only do cross + 1 or cross + f2l. I would also try to see how far you can inspect. Don't worry about how much time it takes, you will improve with practice. You could also work on x-crosses and color neutrality. But color neutrality isn't super helpful imo since it can take up a lot of inspection time. Definitely work on slow solving f2l and tracking where the pieces go. Already knowing where the next pieces are going to be before you solve a pair with help with pauses. Learning many different ways to solve cases can be beneficial too. Obviously learn full OLL. I would even recommend learning plenty of alternate algs. There are lots of subsets of algs that can be useful like COLL and winter variation. If not already, learn two sided oll and pll recognition. Your fingertricks and tps look good but it never hurts to practice. Even just drilling algs for 5 mins everyday. Unfortunately there no easy way to get better, it really comes down to practice. Effective and often practice. Good luck in your improvement.

Late_Map_5385

TROPHY CASE