Is this a correct proof of the Riemann Hypothesis?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of a claimed proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, emphasizing skepticism towards papers from predatory publishers like Science Research Publishing. Participants outline a flowchart for assessing the credibility of such proofs, highlighting the necessity of submission to reputable journals and passing peer review. The conversation references Grigori Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture as a counterexample, noting that legitimate proofs are often scrutinized rigorously. The thread concludes with a reminder that Physics Forums does not conduct professional peer reviews.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Riemann Hypothesis and its significance in mathematics
  • Familiarity with academic publishing standards and peer review processes
  • Knowledge of LaTeX for mathematical documentation
  • Awareness of notable mathematical proofs and their historical context
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the peer review process in reputable mathematics journals
  • Study Grigori Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture
  • Learn about the role of LaTeX in mathematical writing and publication
  • Explore the implications of the Riemann Hypothesis in number theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, researchers in theoretical mathematics, and anyone interested in the validation processes of significant mathematical proofs.

fieldofforce
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Found an article online detailing a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis:

<< link deleted by mentor - unacceptable source >>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No. Science Research Publishing (scirp) is a known predatory publisher and is generally not to be trusted.

I would be very sceptical to any paper claiming to solve the Riemann hypothesis unless it has been checked by the reviewers of a reputable mathematics journal.
 
I this was true, we would have heard it even in the regular TV news. Unrecognized sensation? Nowadays?
 
Flow chart for claims of major proofs:

Is it sent to one of the leading journals?
-- No: It is not a valid proof
-- Yes: Did it pass peer review?
-----In progress: It is probably not a valid proof
-----No: It is not a valid proof
-----Yes: It gets interesting. Did a mathematician find a flaw within 2 years?
--------Yes: It is not a valid proof.
--------No: It is probably a valid proof.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pi-is-3, RelativeRelativity, DrClaude and 2 others
Thank you. Is there individual(s) at Physics Forums competent to check the math and find the flaw(s) if there is/are any?

If there is anyone competent please let me know. I would like to chat or e-mail details of the math.
 
I'll wait for the next Fields medalist and read it then.
 
Last edited:
mfb said:
Flow chart for claims of major proofs:

Is it sent to one of the leading journals?
-- No: It is not a valid proof
Counterexample: Perelman posted his proof of the geometrization conjecture on the arXiv (11 November 2002, 10 March 2003, 17 July 2003). By doing so he solved the Poincaré conjecture and was awarded the Fields medal, which he declined.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
Krylov said:
Counterexample: Perelman posted his proof of the geometrization conjecture on the arXiv (11 November 2002, 10 March 2003, 17 July 2003). By doing so he solved the Poincaré conjecture and was awarded the Fields medal, which he declined.
He also declined the award from CMI for solving one of the Millennium problems, if it is correct, what I've read. That is, he didn't take $1,000,000. (Nevertheless, ##8## pages to solve RH alone is suspicious.)
 
Well, Perelman is special ;). And he was well-known before.
 
  • #10
mfb said:
Flow chart for claims of major proofs:

Is it sent to one of the leading journals?
-- No: It is not a valid proof
-- Yes: Did it pass peer review?
-----In progress: It is probably not a valid proof
-----No: It is not a valid proof
-----Yes: It gets interesting. Did a mathematician find a flaw within 2 years?
--------Yes: It is not a valid proof.
--------No: It is probably a valid proof.
There is one additional criterion:
Is the paper written with LaTeX?
-- No: It is not a valid proof.

The Perelman papers are written with LaTeX, while the paper we discuss here does not seem to be.
 
  • #11
fieldofforce said:
Is there individual(s) at Physics Forums competent to check the math and find the flaw(s) if there is/are any?
We don't do professional peer review here, sorry. The way to get that is to submit the article to a reputable journal and let them do it via their reviewers.

With that, this thread is now closed.
 

Similar threads

Insights The History and Importance of the Riemann Hypothesis
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
High School Get up to speed with the Riemann Hypothesis
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Graduate Where is the usual sensationalism? (Riemann Hypothesis)
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Graduate Has the Riemann hypothesis been proven?
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
17K
Graduate Has anything similar to the Riemann hypothesis ever solved
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad |Li(x) - pi(x)| goes to 0 under RH?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Insights The Extended Riemann Hypothesis and Ramanujan’s Sum
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Is this a valid physical analogy for the Riemann Hypothesis?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate How Riemann hypothesis would break internet security?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Undergrad Wrong proofs of Riemann hypothesis
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K