>>7345I honestly have no bigger regret than the time I have wasted attempting to understand RH proofs by attention-seeking schizos naively thinking one of them may have a groundbreaking idea. Most schizos on the internet barely know anything beyond highschool math and physics anyway and their proof ideas often boil down to a sloppy understanding of the subject or terrible reasoning which, at times, is just free association.
For novel approached to math and science, I've just moved on to more well-respected figures who published more controversial work later on (e.g. Mochizuki's IUTT, Atiyah's "proof" of the RH) or the original, old works of some scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians (Newton, Cauchy, Cantor, Maxwell, etc.). This has been far more enlightening so far. For instance, I found out Cantor thought of sets as much more geometric objects which may better be described as "objects of whichever category is ultimately the best category", and his description of it made it sound a lot like a topos.