oeps, did I just proven the riemann hypothesis?

[Perdurat]

what doesn't need to be proven:
-there are infinite number of primes
-there are infinite number of natural numbers (integers)
-all primes number are a natural number
-all prime numbers are bound by the property that +1 yields a non prime, which is a natural number (outbound)
-all prime numbers are bound by the property that -1 yields a non prime, which is a natural number (inbound)
-for all non prime natural numbers, there exists EXACTLY 1 representation as a sum of product(s) of primes
if and only if all above stands tall then:
one can state:
-if and only if all non-trivial points reside on f(x)=0, if and only if at least 1 trivial point is found on f(y)=1/2 a)
-because from any point on f(x) one can find EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND non-trivial point) inbound
-because from any point on f(x) one can find EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND non-trivial point) outbound
-because from any point on f(y)=1/2 one can find EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND trivial point) inbound
-because from any point on f(y)=1/2 one can find EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND trivial point) outbound
one must stand tall and state:
consider the Riemann hypothesis proved

a) Bernhard Riemann, I salute you, sincerely

 

[fresh_42]

If you mean this seriously, can you explain why all non-trivial zeros are in the critical strip?
If you don't, forget my question.

 

[Perdurat]

If you mean this seriously, can you explain why all non-trivial zeros are in the critical strip?

x-axis: all non-trivial points (cyclic) f(y)=0
critical strip: f(x)=0 (lowerboundry), f(x)=1 (upperboundry)
first trivial point found on f(x)=1/2) a)
oeps, again
a) his calculating method (pen and paper) revealed either a non-trivial point OR a trivial point, my best guess is, the great mathematician he was, he found 1 trivial point, at least 2, at most 4 non trivial points, to reduce his work to be subject to objectivity, and published his paper.
With respect to his work (I came across) I found great similarity between his defenition of a non-trivial point and a toy boat controlled by electromagnetic waves (Nicola Tesla)

 

[Perdurat]

s

what doesn't need to be proven:
-there are infinite number of primes
-there are infinite natural numbers
-all prime numbers are a natural number
-all prime numbers are bound by the property that +1 yields a non prime, which is a natural number (outbound)
-all prime numbers are bound by the property that -1 yields a non prime, which is a natural number (inbound)
-for all non prime natural numbers, there exists EXACTLY 1 representation as a sum of product(s) of primes
if and only if all above stands tall then:
one can state:
-if and only if all non-trivial points reside on f(y)=0, if and only if at least 1 trivial point is found on f(x)=1/2 a)
-because from any point,outbound of (-2,0) on f(y)=0, one can find:
EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND non-trivial point) inbound
EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND non-trivial point) outbound
-because from any point,outbound of (1/2, 17) on f(x)=1/2, one can find:
EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND trivial point) inbound
EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND trivial point) outbound
one must stand tall and state:
consider the Riemann hypothesis proved

a) Bernhard Riemann, I salute you, sincerely

 

[Perdurat]

1 trivial point, at least 2, at most 4 non trivial points

and oeps again:
1 non-trivial, at least 2, at most 4 trivial points
(somethimes, my brain plays tricks on me: like Jack Michelson vs Michael Jackson, Enthalpy vs Entropy,...)
somethimes funny, sometimes annoying

 

[Perdurat]

17 ties up neatly with itselve (the first prime to be found outbound), 15 splices neatly up (5x3), with the inbound prime (13), defining the boundry condition, as well as the unfortunate: within his lifespan he wasn't able to grant the objectivity: the boundry condition . my best guess: he was granted one point (0,0) and calculated exactly 1 non-trivial AND exactly 1 trivial point.

-the observation:
a) there are infinite number of primes
b) there are infinite natural numbers
c) all prime numbers are a natural number
d) all prime numbers are bound by the property that +1 yields a non prime, which is a natural number (outbound)
e) all prime numbers are bound by the property that -1 yields a non prime, which is a natural number (inbound)
f) for all non prime natural numbers, there exists EXACTLY 1 representation as a sum of product(s) of primes
if and only if all above stands tall then:
-one can state:
g) if and only if all non-trivial points reside on f(y)=0, if and only if at least 1 trivial point is found on f(x)=1/2 a)
h) because from any point,outbound of (-2,0) on f(y)=0, one can find:
EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND non-trivial point) inbound
EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND non-trivial point) outbound
i) because from any point,outbound of (1/2, 15) on f(x)=1/2, one can find:
EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND trivial point) inbound
EXACTLY 1 FIRST (prime number AND natural number AND trivial point) outbound
one must stand tall and state:
consider the Riemann hypothesis proved

a) Bernhard Riemann, I salute you, sincerely

 

[fresh_42]

I see.

 

[Perdurat]

I see

I came across a function some 5 or 10 years ago, (with regards to reclaiming an observation, a real book outclasses the internet). it was something like:
[math]... sin(x)*e^x...[/math]for x=0->
left term becomes : sin(x)=0->y=0 (some similarity with the trivial points of the riemann function)
right term
for x = 0->1
for x =1->e
for x < 1->root
for x > 1->power (some similarity with the non-trivial points of the riemann function and the strip)

for the Riemann hypothese:
the outbound proof (solid) defines the strip
the points: (0,0),(-2,0) defining a line (non-trivial points)
the points: (1/2,0),(1/2,14.1347) defining a line (trivial points)

disproving the Riemann hypothese (by finding a trivial point not on the f(y)=1/2) now that would kinda disprove math...
i think this is kinda extremely funny

note: did you know that the inventor of sqrt(-1) waited untill laid upon his bed to die to handing over his invention?
seems like history kinda repeats itselve

gratitude, the help improve upon the proposal