What is the.......?

Question

What is the hardest math? Give me an example of it!!

Answer 1

You've got to know that is a subjective question! Of course there are lots of fields in Mathematics that are difficult, but who is to say which is the most difficult?
If you are talking about specific open questions in math, look at Hilbert's problems, some of which are solved.

Answer 2

the maths which is difficult
eg 1 + 1 = 3
just joking man

Answer 3

Prove the Riemann Hypothesis:

All nontrivial solutions to ζ(s) = 0 have Re(s) = 1/2

The trivial solutions are -2, -4, -6 ...

Where

ζ(s) = 1 / Γ(s) * ∫(from 0 to infinity) [u^(s-1) / (e^u - 1)] du

and

Γ(s) = ∫(from 0 to infinity) t^(s-1)*e^(-t) dt

Answer 4

The math you dont know how to do.

X1x174373726873647346x5630187438Yx1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x XY=

Answer 5

The math YOU don't know how to do!

Answer 6

The following is from an introduction to M-Theory, which reveals many of the problems with the ‘string’ approach.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.ht ml

“The standard model was designed within a framework known as Quantum Field Theory (QFT), …. But unfortunately the fourth interaction, gravity, beautifully described by Einstein's General Relativity (GR), does not seem to fit into this scheme. Whenever one tries to apply the rules of QFT to GR one gets results which make no sense. For instance, the force between two gravitons (the particles that mediate gravitational interactions), becomes infinite and we do not know how to get rid of these infinities to get physically sensible results.”

First of all General Relativity did not explain the mechanism of gravity. It merely gave us the abstract image of warped space and the tautology of the rubber-sheet analogy (which uses gravity itself to explain gravity). There was and is no accepted explanation of what physically is the cause for the gravitational field which is visualized abstractly as the “shape of space”. There is no evidence for the hypothetical “graviton” or any other force-mediating-particle or particle-mediated-force.

One major problem with the standard model, that string theory is attempting to reconcile, is the nonsensical conception of the point-particle. The calculations of the forces between two “particles” become mathematically infinite because they are using the mathematical fantasy of the “point-particle” as their model for the “fundamental particle”. These so-called point-particles are "infinitely" small thus they can approach each other indefinitely, ever increasing their inter-attractive forces without ever touching each other. This is the age-old problem of trying to quantify the continuum, as explained in Zeno’s paradox. If you are going to use point-particles to escape the necessity of physical extension and then use those extensionless particles for explaining phenomena in extended space then you are going to run into problems, because you are trying to marry two separate realms: the non-existent realm of mathematical extensionless points, with the existent realm of physically extended matter. In reality a particle with zero extension can not exist! Its negation is implicit in its own zero-dimensional definition.

To deal with those infinities which are a result of a faulty premise of the point-particle, Physics has invented a trick called “renormalization”, which is simply a method of replacing those errors (infinities) with the correct observational data. It is now common-place to hear physicists speak of “renormalizability” as a necessary component of any correct theory! It has become considered a positive and necessary attribute of any theory!

[[ I recently heard a professor state that renormalizability means that the theory is mathematically consistent!! In fact it means just the opposite. ]]

String theory deals with this problem by giving a pseudo extension to the point-particle and it replaces it with a loop of “string”, a simple mathematical radius, which also possess zero-dimensionality in its width, thus it also does not exist.

Another M-Theory excerpt:
“One of the most remarkable predictions of String Theory is that space-time has ten dimensions!”

Space-time does not have dimension. It is the finite human mind which must compartmentalize nature into the quantifiable parameters called dimension. The M-theorists are concretizing a mental abstraction and tucking it neatly away beneath the quantum level where it can never be seen or experimentally verified. It is a big mistake to base a theory on an unverifiable, misinterpreted and concretized mental-abstraction. Has anyone ever SEEN a dimension or observed its physical actions? That is because there is no such thing as a dimension in the real physical world.

The main problem with modern physics is in the tacit assumption of the atom-in-the-void inherited from the ancient Greeks, the programmed obsession of breaking things down to an ultimate, quantifiable, non-structured thus indivisible particle residing in an intervening void. In contradiction to this atomic schema our experiments reveal that ALL of the so-far revealed/manufactured subatomic particles have deeper level complexities manifested in their wave nature interactions and their fluid inter-convertibility. They are harmonic resonances and fluid-dynamic effects in a continuous medium.

M-theory is a VERY complex method for patching together incorrect Relativity Theory and incomplete Quantum Theory. However, there is a much simpler, more coherent and thus humanly understandable, alternative method for the unification of ALL the disparate forces, but it requires a fundamental paradigm-shift from an underlying overly simplistic kinetic-atomic substrate to a more complex fluid-dynamic-continuum substrate. This shift in foundation from abstract, nonunified and overly-simplistic toward realistic, more complex, holistic and fluid-dynamic--ultimately enables simpler, more coherent higher-level constructions to be built, thus rendering the whole of physics visualizable and thus humanly understandable. With the proper foundation, all of the complex ad-hoc kludges to get the disparate (and desperate ;) compartments of modern physics to fit are rendered superfluous.

this is quantem mechanics, it is not my work but if you can understand it then obviously i'm wrong and don't deserve the best answer

Answer 7

IMO Dif' EQ.
Hated it.