- #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:
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
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.
There is one additional criterion: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.
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?