A proof of Riemann hypothesis (but of course the snobbish journals don,t want

[eljose]

to publish it because i,m not a famous teacher,mathematician from a snob and pedant univesity of Usa of England...this is the way science improves..only by publishing works from famous mathematician.. o fcourse if i were Louis de Branges or Alain Connes or other famous mathematician the work would have been published long ago...

the link to my webpage is www.geocities.com/josegarc2002/RHypothesis.pdf

remember that the zeta function $$\zeta(a+is)$$ for every a has no pure imaginary roots (only the trivial roms are purely imaginary, but these do not satisfy that if s is a root also s* is a root).

 

[HallsofIvy]

Albert Einstein was a clerk in a patent office when his greatest papers were published!

Perhaps those journals are just too snobbish to print nonsense.

 

[shmoe]

Is this not a repeat of what you posted in

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=87875

The work and your conspiracy theory beliefs seem to be the same.

 

[matt grime]

if i were Louis de Branges or Alain Connes or other famous mathematician the work would have been published long ago...

i take it this means you got rejected by the physics journal then? of course it's impossible that you are incorrect, isn't it? connes isn't at an english university or an american one. he is in paris. de branges is not a particularly well respected mathematician. even your "examples" of snobbish preferences are flawed.

 

[Zurtex]

Well now actually studying Hamiltonian Dynamical Systems in my maths course this was kind of a funny read. I would point out some of the mistakes and points that make this an insufficient proof, but you seem to react quite adversely to constructive critism.

 

[eljose]

I,m open to all critics of my math work...if you <<zurtex or other have found any mistakes feel free to post..i am not angry with journals because they found mistakes and rejected my job , i am angry because they reject my work without taking any look at it...if they had told me "you have mistakes here,there and there in this function or in this step" i would understand and try to make my paper better with no mistakes..but they don,t even reply my work only say "we have rejected your work because is not suitable to our journal" only this the typical computer-reply (wich say little good about them,in fact perhaps they have not even taken a look to it)...

i repeat i am open to any criticism about my paper...

 

[imabug]

Having read most of the previous thread and after a look at that PDF, all your accusations of snobbery and elitism are completely unwarranted.

All math aside, I think if you're going to try and write and submit a paper in English, it should at least be written properly, with correct spelling, grammar and punctuation. Even ignoring the math and equations, I could hardly make heads or tails of what you were trying to say because of the lousy grammar, spelling, punctuation and long run-on sentences. If I were a journal editor and someone submitted something like that with barely comprehensible grammar, I'd summarily reject it too, and not because of anything to do with snobbery.

Given that the address in your paper says you're in Spain, and that English probably isn't your first language, the poor grammar would be understandable. But if you're going to submit it for publication in an English-language journal, at least have someone review it for proper grammar and punctuation. Don't submit crap and expect the editors and reviewers to do all the editing to fix your grammar. Reviewers don't have time to fix simple grammar mistakes. Accusing the system of elitism and snobbery because a poorly written paper was rejected also doesn't do any good.

My advice would be to take your paper to someone who's fluent in English, and work over the grammar and punctuation with them. They don't even need to understand what you're writing about. They just need to help you fix the writing mistakes. Or write it in your first language and find someone to help you translate it. Then post the revised (and hopefully more readable) version and ask for a critical review.

 

[Zurtex]

Furthermore without going into the actual detail of the mathematics and keeping on the general format (because the mathematics not clear enough to go into any detail). You seem to missing vast amounts for a proof, I see no lemmas, remarks, theorems, enough references etc.. There is not a clear enough demonstration of your mathematical steps, we should see everything step by step, detailing what you are doing in simple statements. Often you make quite significant changes and assume people know how you’ve changed it even though you’ve only given some vague description of what is going on. For example, you say in it: “We now by the existence theorem for differential equations that given y``=F(x,y,y`)
where `means derivative respect to x,the differential equation will have a solution if F
and the first partial derivative of F respect to y are continuous, so in our case
F(x,y,y`)=AV(x)y+By with A and B constants ,so the potential is continuous
everywhere but perhaps a number of points with zero measure.”That’s only 1 sentence!“We now by”, “for differential equations”, “that given y” and “where `means derivative respect to x”, doesn’t make any grammatical sense. You say “the existence theorem”, there are many existence theorems, which one is it? Make a reference for it, show that your equation sufficiently satisfies the conditions given in this existence theorem. Stating something in words like “if F and the first partial derivative of F respect to y are continuous” doesn’t make much sense when you could write it mathematically:

$$\text{If} \quad F \quad \text{and} \quad \frac{\partial F}{\partial y} \quad \text{are continuous}$$

And that then is a lot more clear, but then you haven’t bothered to prove that they are continuous or show sufficient conditions exist for one to see they are continuous.
In fact, I could point out problems with this one sentence all day, but that would really be a waste of time. What I do hope is that this shows you what kind of rigor and clarity is needed for a mathematical proof.

 

[eljose]

thanks for your cooperation zurtex...if you point me all the grammar mistakes i will correct them..as for the grammar i have submited my work to several teachers in my country,but they have not given me any response and as is a techncial paper i am very doubtful that anyone not understanding physics can translate it properly...

It seems that the mathematics in my formulation are all correct..as nobody has been able to provide a counterexample...

 

[Zurtex]

No!

Most your mathematics does not make enough sense to point out a mistake.

Counter examples are occasionally shown to prove hypotheses wrong, the hypothesis in this case is the Riemann hypothesis and that many not have any counter examples as it may be true. That does not mean that your proof is correct!

I am studying both Quantum Mechanics and Hamiltonian Dynamical Systems, I understand all the symbols and what the equations mean. However you do not show sufficient steps of how you get from one equation to the other for people to be able to point out mistakes in the mathematics. This is not just a problem of grammar, spellings and general good English, your mathematical steps are not clear. If it was a properly formatted proof, grammar and spellings wouldn’t be so much as an issue as you would have lots of short simple clear steps and we would be able to help you with your mathematics and some of your grammar.

I do not have time to post the sheer amount of grammar mistakes, I have a lot of my own work to do, also it would not make the proof any more understandable until you sort the mathematics of it out.

 

[HallsofIvy]

One major problem you have is with the fundamental concept. A physics journal is not going to want to publish a proof of the Riemann hypothesis- it's not physics. And a math journal is going to be leary of publishing a proof that "uses" quantum mechanics to prove a mathematical theorem. As I pointed out the last time you started a thread on this, you can't use physics to prove mathematics.

However, if I understand this correctly, you are not actually using quantum mechanics, just arguing that you can set up a certain differential equation (that just happens to be Shroedinger's equation) that has the zeta function as a solution. It would be better to cast the problem entirely in terms of mathematics.

 

[matt grime]

Problems with your mathematics are routinely pointed out, eljose, but you fail to understand the criticism. This is surprising because the only criticism really is, as has been pointed out, that "you do not write out anything that is comprehensible mathematics". It is hard to provide a counter example to something that is to all intents and purposes completely meaningless.

As for snobbery, you are also forgetting Erdos who managed to have a moderately succssful career without ever being on the faculty of any university. If you don't know who erdos was I should point out that the use of the word "moderately" is a joke (litotic) since he was the best discrete mathematician (and one of the most prolific) of the 20th century (or any other).

Further, the principle job of the referees is *NOT* to point out mistakes in your work (it is your responsibilty to make sure there is none), but to state that the work is substantially original, makes sufficient progress towards some result, and/or fulfils the other criteria of the journal (eg if it were a survey article originality is not required). One look at your article and it is clear that it absolutely fails to meet any criteria of mathematical respectability, never mind the fact that you may be submiting it to the wrong journal in the first place. If a referee has the time and patience to thoroughly check the proof so much the better but they are not there to vouch for its correctness (though many think they ought to be). Referees do the job for free (or for nominal payment) and are not there to act as sounding boards for your ideas. The place to work through ideas is in a seminar and/or with interested parties in private, not in a submitted journal.