# Why so heavy downvoting?

• It shows -9/+7 when I display the vote count.
– Asaf Karagila Mod
Sep 9, 2015 at 16:19
• @Asaf Karagila thanks, fixed Sep 9, 2015 at 16:26
• Unfortunately bring this to peoples' attention seems to have gotten you more down-votes, which doesn't surprise me. If people knew the answer to 'does this approach solve the RH', they would just go and do it. Sep 10, 2015 at 6:19
• @David Roberts good point, removed this part. Sep 10, 2015 at 10:25

I do not know, and since voting is anonymous, we will never know. But I can name two possible reasons. This is of course only my opinion, but it might be helpful.

Your question is too long, is every part of it essential to state your question? If not, the not essential parts aren't marked so that someone who is just slightly interested must read everything too.

You asked a question of the type "Can this be used to solve Riemann hypothesis?". I wouldn't be surprised if there would be people who award this with a downvote if your question isn't very convincing.

In fact, you made a large amount of people read 2 pages then you asked "can this be used to solve Riemann?". If we put it this way, the number of downvotes is not surprising at all. (The number of upvotes isn't surprising either, because part of it is fun.)

• I removed the mention of the hypothesis, and now it got closed! Sep 10, 2015 at 15:56
• @Anixx: But you forgot to remove references to "Cantor's approach" in the first paragraph. All of these things are usually clear signs of crackpottery. In the future, I recommend avoiding that or, if necessary, putting it in a post-script rather than the first paragraph. Sep 10, 2015 at 23:26
• @François G. Dorais no, this is the core of the idea Sep 11, 2015 at 3:36
• Why I should delete it if my approach on comparing sets is distinctly different from Cantor's? I just propose a different way of doing so. It is the main point. Sep 11, 2015 at 13:27
• It seems that not only me used this approach for attemptin to prove Riemann hypothesis. I have just found this paper: arxiv.org/abs/1011.3352 which describes essentially the same thing (they use B for what I denote as $\omega_{+})$ Oct 22, 2015 at 13:54
• @Anixx This doesn't improve your question. Oct 22, 2015 at 18:21