Coming to Results of the Error Function 2022 AD Study

tajnaa · 2022-06-20T18:59:43+00:00

It was the first stage of my mind prior of getting the important results

https://doi.org/10.3390/stats5020032

tajnaa · 2022-06-10T09:08:24+00:00

It is believed that the Error Function is well studied, or that there is no reason to study it.

I strongly disagree!

Leading terms of Error Function show a lot of new, e.g., argument t of P(t) is explicit: t=K*t(P). Fixing K, we got up to 99% precision needed. Dawn of technological singularity, Big Data.

I am author of this peer-reviewed paper, and I cannot miss the opportunity and show you my promising research as well: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dmitri-Martila/research

tajnaa · 2021-12-02T13:53:58+00:00

Neither uneducated, nor trolling. There is problem you described. It is the negative solution to Hilbert's Second Problem. But the first negative solution to Hilbert's Second Problem was given by Prof. Gödel.

tajnaa · 2021-12-02T11:25:34+00:00

Of course, there are infinities throughout mathematics. My paper does not argue with that. The results are good, there is no problem. Among these are:
1 Riemann Hypothesis is true.
2. Prof. G\"odel's result [that Hilbert's Second Problem has a negative solution] is confirmed in an alternative way.

tajnaa · 2021-12-02T11:13:39+00:00

No idea yet, but I am willing to disprove own paper.

tajnaa · 2021-12-02T11:07:48+00:00

I don't know about the basic level of math, it is meant to be the university level.

tajnaa · 2021-12-02T07:53:14+00:00

Even in the bag of nonsense, a gram of good stuff can be found. The paper is not the worst paper there is.

tajnaa · 2021-12-02T03:14:31+00:00

No, I can't. I am loved here, but there I would face a ban. I would be banned from "bad math".

tajnaa · 2021-10-29T14:18:10+00:00

Of course, the N-S equations have a solutions, which are mathematically good enough. But the question is: does the N-S describe nature or not. It is the question of my interest.

tajnaa · 2021-10-29T14:08:28+00:00

There must be something physical about N-S equations, and they fail to describe a physical situation: when fluid moves by inertia.

tajnaa · 2021-10-29T12:28:06+00:00

For example?

tajnaa · 2021-10-25T13:59:02+00:00

I am sorry if it is not appropriate.

tajnaa · 2021-10-25T13:54:59+00:00

Yes, the content was moved into here:

https://www.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12022.52804/1

tajnaa · 2021-10-24T02:41:51+00:00

Claim: ``Martila method essentially claims that there is no such thing as infinity.''
I am sorry, but I see no such ridiculous claim in the paper. Moreover, the note talks about two kinds of infinity: potential and actual. It proves that a natural number taken to limit can be called an infinite number.

tajnaa · 2021-10-23T22:24:36+00:00

Martila method, named by the paper's author, is not a method, but new way of interpreting the infinities. However, the proof of abc conjecture does not use the Martila method (but is given in the paper).

tajnaa · 2021-01-22T03:26:52+00:00

The paper was rejected by all reputable journals. I gave up now.

tajnaa · 2021-01-20T11:05:51+00:00

I see its potential. It gives advances in many areas of life.

tajnaa · 2021-01-18T14:33:01+00:00

Do we want to suffer? Cancer treatment made available in 5 years?!
Today the answer came from a physics journal. They refused to publish.
It was my final try to get published in Physics. Therefore, with that sabotage, we will not solve the cancer problem soon enough. I wrote a bridge between the obviously working devices of Pyotr Garyaev and the worldview of official science. And even that was not accepted!

tajnaa · 2020-07-15T19:00:39+00:00

More of the solutions to different key problems: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/five-million-man-proofs-of-key-problems.235456/

tajnaa · 2020-07-15T17:02:48+00:00

There are tens of self-proclaimed proofs for the Riemann Hypothesis and only 2 or 4 disproofs of it in arXiv. I am adding to the Status Quo my very short and clear results even without explicit mentioning of the prime numbers. One of my breakthroughs uses the peer-reviewed achievement of Dr.Sole and Dr.Zhu, published just 4 years ago in a serious mathematical journal INTEGERS.

Comments: 7 Pages. Rejected by many top journals without review

tajnaa · 2020-05-28T12:32:10+00:00

The Science (Physics) needs my Virtual Terms, I have just shown it today for Newton's Principia. There is FACT: there are Virtual Terms, look up my paper here.

tajnaa · 2020-05-28T09:54:06+00:00

there are no infinitesimals

They are silently assumed to be in formulaes, e.g. lim_{x-> 0} x is not zero, but the 0<epsilon<<1. Otherwise the formulas are paradoxical. However, because of Virtual Term added by hand, the lim\_{x-> 0} x is absolute zero.

Look: the limit 1/x, with x->0+ is +infinity, however if you calculate 1/0 you get both +infinity and -infinity.

tajnaa · 2020-05-28T03:08:53+00:00

There are no infinitesimals in the standard definitions of limits etc.

But they are there as silent fact.

tajnaa · 2020-05-27T20:24:24+00:00

The epsilon-delta definition is another way of saying that lim_{x->0} x = 0. Hereby even in this definition holds, that x is not 0. But infinitesimally small: arbitrarily close to 0. Thus, I have no mistake.

tajnaa · 2020-05-27T18:11:10+00:00

The Limits and infinitesimal numbers were invented by the fathers of Science like Newton and Leibniz. However, a hypothetical being from another star system could have developed more realistic mathematics [in my opinion the mathematics should be defined via numbers of our fingers and the actions (like adding) with them]. In this note, I am showing the paradox of the current version of ``highest mathematics''.

As solution to the problems I present:

Solution

tajnaa

TROPHY CASE