A Is this a valid physical analogy for the Riemann Hypothesis?

[mustang19]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2115

I know Arxiv isn't a real journal, but this caught my eye.

Is this a meaningful physical interpretation of the Riemann hypothesis?

From what I understand, the zeta function can be modeled as a wave, but attempting to solve for the real part requires infinite recursion- thus RH is axiomatic and unprovable.

 

[micromass]

Paper not written in LaTeX? Check.
Paper making bold claim without real evidence? Check.
Bold math claim made by somebody who isn't even working as a mathematician? Check.
Paper in the "General Math" section of ArXiv? Check.

Congratulations, you're looking at a crackpot paper.

 

[fresh_42]

Paper not written in LaTeX? Check.
Paper making bold claim without real evidence? Check.
Bold math claim made by somebody who isn't even working as a mathematician? Check.
Paper in the "General Math" section of ArXiv? Check.

Congratulations, you're looking at a crackpot paper.

And I was wondering how a proof of undecidability of such an old conjecture could be done within only seven pages by physical means. The translation between them alone should have taken more.

 

[micromass]

And I was wondering how a proof of undecidability of such an old conjecture could be done within only seven pages by physical means. The translation between them alone should have taken more.

Take a look at the "Important remarks" at page 6 where he proves it "in words". His entire remark pretty much is a dead give away that this person doesn't know anything about advanced mathematics.

 

[fresh_42]

He lost me at the very beginning as he wrote about "no closed form", "no analytical form" and "cannot be checked".
Even the Wikipedia article on it seems to be of greater accuracy. Ok the author is belarussian and not russian. But I first thought it might be someone like Perelman who isn't easy to understand either. Now I regret this thought.

 

[mfb]

I think it got clear enough that the paper is nonsense.