On 10/31/2013 02:48 AM, David Bernier wrote: > On 10/30/2013 06:28 PM, Richard Tobin wrote: >> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, >> Robin Chapman <R.J.Chapman@ex.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> Come on, Bart, you've been around sci.math for a while; >>> however egregiously daft Dan's ideas on exponentiation might >>> be, they are nowhere near breaking any records for idiocy >>> even just in sci.math. >> >> Very true. I propose that 0^0 be defined to be 0.999...9 >> >> -- Richard >> > > I've been critisized in the past for not giving a precise > definition of infinity, and from what I remember, > breaking records of inaptitude here in sci.math is > not for the typical new-comer, in my opinion. :)
Vinoo Cameron and associates of "Inverse 19" are ranked highly by me for exceptional obscurity.
As in the "paper":
Title: "The disproof and fall of the Riemann?s hypothesis by quadratic base: The correct variable distribution of prime numbers by the clear mathematics of the half-line values (?Chan function?) of prime numbers".
Author: Vinoo Cameron MD.
Association: Hope research, Athens, Wisconsin, USA.