Reputation loss (-100) due to Community Bot action on a valid research-based answer

I'm going to assume that you did not use an LLM to write your answer, and I'm going to assume that your restatement of the Riemann hypothesis is correct (although I haven't attempted to check it myself). Following are some suggestions about how to present your work in a way that will make it more likely to be taken seriously by professional mathematicians. (Note: I'm not saying that you ought to follow these suggestions, nor am I saying that the habits of professional mathematicians are admirable or even defensible. I'm not even saying that professional mathematicians form a community whose attention is worth getting. All I'm saying is that if, for some reason, you want your work to be taken seriously by professional mathematicians, then the following suggestions should help.)

• Professional mathematicians have a host of unwritten rules about what sorts of self-promotion are acceptable and what sorts of self-promotion are not acceptable. For example, you're not supposed to describe your own results as "beautiful" or "impressive" or "profound" or "phenomenal." Those adjectives are reserved for other people's work. Now, you do have to motivate your work, so you do have to say what distinguishes your formulation from previous formulations. But you need to do so in a way that conforms to societal expectations of modesty. I'd suggest that in your paper, you try to limit yourself to one section at the end where you explicitly point out what you have achieved that has not already been achieved by previous formulations. The rest of the paper should have a neutral, technical tone. Also, when you post to MathOverflow, don't spend three paragraphs saying what's so great about your formulation. State the formulation, say that it's original work, and point people to your paper for more details.
• A page and a half of quotes at the beginning of your paper is not suitable for a research paper. Zero quotes is best; one quote is acceptable; two quotes is pushing it.
• You overuse boldface. "Our main result" and "Riemann hypothesis" should not be boldfaced. "Theorem 1" (and "Proposition 3", etc.) should not be boldfaced when they're cited (though when you actually state Theorem 1, it's okay for it to be boldfaced that one time).
• Undergraduate-level results and notation should not be belabored. Here are a few examples (by no means exhaustive; I'm just trying to give you an idea of what I mean). You don't need to say "Definition 1" for the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Just go ahead and use $\gamma$, and the first time it appears, say in passing, "where $\gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant." The series comparison test should not be stated as "Theorem 1"; you can assume that the reader is familiar with it; at most, you can give a citation the first time you invoke it. In Proposition 6, you don't need to repeat all the definitions that you already gave in Proposition 5. Etc.

On the positive side, it's good that you're using $\mathrm{\LaTeX}$. Your introduction is also pretty good; it briefly summarizes previous work, and also states your main result on the first page. My main criticisms, again, concern self-promotion; e.g., don't say that your work offers a "potential pathway to attack the hypothesis"; for such a famous problem, an elementary reformulation has zero chance of helping anyone solve it.