- #1

- 5

- 0

Found an article online detailing a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis:

<< link deleted by mentor - unacceptable source >>

<< link deleted by mentor - unacceptable source >>

Last edited by a moderator:

- A
- Thread starter fieldofforce
- Start date

- #1

- 5

- 0

<< link deleted by mentor - unacceptable source >>

Last edited by a moderator:

- #2

- 16,829

- 6,652

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.

- #3

fresh_42

Mentor

- 14,152

- 11,454

- #4

mfb

Mentor

- 35,139

- 11,384

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.

- #5

- 5

- 0

If there is anyone competent please let me know. I would like to chat or e-mail details of the math.

- #6

fresh_42

Mentor

- 14,152

- 11,454

I'll wait for the next Fields medalist and read it then.

Last edited:

- #7

S.G. Janssens

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 938

- 715

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.Flow chart for claims of major proofs:

Is it sent to one of the leading journals?

-- No: It is not a valid proof

- #8

fresh_42

Mentor

- 14,152

- 11,454

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.)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.

- #9

mfb

Mentor

- 35,139

- 11,384

Well, Perelman is special ;). And he was well-known before.

- #10

- 11,220

- 3,884

There is one additional criterion:

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.

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

jtbell

Mentor

- 15,722

- 3,858

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.Is there individual(s) at Physics Forums competent to check the math and find the flaw(s) if there is/are any?

With that, this thread is now closed.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 6K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 700

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 44

- Views
- 8K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 25

- Views
- 2K