For this question I received 7 upvotes and 9 downvotes. Why is so heavy downvoting?

| |
  • $\begingroup$ It shows -9/+7 when I display the vote count. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Sep 9 '15 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf Karagila thanks, fixed $\endgroup$ – Anixx Sep 9 '15 at 16:26
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Sep 10 '15 at 6:19
  • $\begingroup$ @David Roberts good point, removed this part. $\endgroup$ – Anixx Sep 10 '15 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.)

| |
  • $\begingroup$ I removed the mention of the hypothesis, and now it got closed! $\endgroup$ – Anixx Sep 10 '15 at 15:56
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – François G. Dorais Sep 10 '15 at 23:26
  • $\begingroup$ @François G. Dorais no, this is the core of the idea $\endgroup$ – Anixx Sep 11 '15 at 3:36
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Anixx Sep 11 '15 at 13:27
  • $\begingroup$ 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 $\omega_{+})$ $\endgroup$ – Anixx Oct 22 '15 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Anixx This doesn't improve your question. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Soltész Oct 22 '15 at 18:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .