The Proof of Riemann Hypothesis Through Zeta Universality Theorem

You can remember my old approach I tried, but this is not relted to the previous one, yet it is the only one I am quite confident for. Zeta Universality is a fascinated ability of Riemann zeta-function to "mimic" any other non-vanishing analytic function after the linear translation by the imaginary component. The paper I present in this video is devoted to removing the condition of being non-vanishing for the function to be approximated. It is also well-known, that Riemann Hypothesis is true if and only if Riemann zeta-function can approximate itself in the sense of Zeta Universality Theorem. Hence, after generalization of this theorem for vanishing functions we immediately obtain that Riemann Hypothesis is true. You can find the link to the article and my contacts down below.

Czech bank account:
123-7220250257/0100
IBAN: CZ59 0100 0001 2372 2025 0257

[artificialresearching]

Timecodes:

1:27 - Initial theorem
2:21 - Auxiliary statements
4:26 - The Main Lemma
7:10 - The Generalised Theorem
9:30 - The Riemann Hypothesis

[Mahonoyuki]

Thanks for the structured explanation!

[sidneysilva]

Dear noble friends, professors, students, acquaintances of this simple channel, with my respect to everyone present here; what impact would it have on the Universe of Mathematics, by stating that some numbers cited are not prime? and the Twin Cousins do not exist?
two; 19; 41; 59; 61; 79; 101; 139; 179; 181; 199; 239; 241; 281; 359; 401; 419; 421; 439; 461; 479; 499; 521; 541; 599; 601; 619; 641; 659; 661; 701; 719; 739; 761; 821; 839; 859; 881; 919; 941; 1019; 1021; 1039; 1061; 1181; 1201; 1259; 1279; 1301; 1319; 1321; 1361; 1381; 1399; 1439; 1459; 1481; 1499; 1559; 1579; 1601; 1619; 1621; 1699; 1721; 1741; 1759; 1801; 1861; 1879; 1901; 1979;
However, the "Rielmann Hypothesis" completely loses its strength in the theories of past times, however this prize that the Clay Institute wants to pay, will not be able to pay for an unfounded theory, since these numbers are not prime, it can totally change the history of Mathematics, bringing Innovative Mathematics to the current era, my concept of what a prime number is, I sanctioned a Law that must always be respected; for every prime number, where it will be factored from the smallest to the largest, and from the largest to the smallest only with the prime numbers themselves, so it will be considered a prime number .... follows how my thesis will be:
I will multiply only with prime numbers, respecting my law:
3*5*7*11*13*17 = 255255
255255 3
85085 5
17017 7
2431 11
221 13
17 17
1
In this first example it was from smallest to largest;
255255 17
15015 13
1155 11
105 7
15 5
3 3
1
In this second example it was from the largest to the smallest, only this pattern can say that it is a prime number. Sir Sidney Silva.