A Is this a correct proof of the Riemann Hypothesis?

fieldofforce · Dec 6, 2016

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

<< link deleted by mentor - unacceptable source >>

Orodruin · Dec 6, 2016

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.

fresh_42 · Dec 7, 2016

I this was true, we would have heard it even in the regular TV news. Unrecognized sensation? Nowadays???

mfb · Dec 7, 2016

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.

fieldofforce · Dec 7, 2016

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.

fresh_42 · Dec 7, 2016

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

Krylov · Dec 7, 2016

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.

fresh_42 · Dec 7, 2016

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.)

mfb · Dec 7, 2016

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

Demystifier · Dec 14, 2016

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.

jtbell · Dec 14, 2016

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.

Log in or Sign up

A Is this a correct proof of the Riemann Hypothesis?

fieldofforce

Orodruin

fresh_42

Staff: Mentor

mfb

Staff: Mentor

fieldofforce

fresh_42

Staff: Mentor

Krylov

fresh_42

Staff: Mentor

mfb

Staff: Mentor

Demystifier

jtbell

Staff: Mentor

Riemann Hypothesis (Replies: 6)

Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (Replies: 15)

The Riemann hypothesis (Replies: 2)

Riemann Hypothesis and Goldbach Conjecture Proof? (Replies: 5)

The Riemann hypothesis (Replies: 4)