Is this a valid physical analogy for the Riemann Hypothesis?

  • #1
75
4
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.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
micromass
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
22,129
3,301
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.
 
  • Like
Likes mustang19, Pepper Mint, mfb and 1 other person
  • #3
fresh_42
Mentor
Insights Author
2021 Award
16,447
15,503
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.
 
  • #4
micromass
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
22,129
3,301
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.
 
  • #5
fresh_42
Mentor
Insights Author
2021 Award
16,447
15,503
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.
 
  • #6
35,919
12,746
I think it got clear enough that the paper is nonsense.
 
  • Like
Likes Pepper Mint

Related Threads on Is this a valid physical analogy for the Riemann Hypothesis?

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
74
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
583
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
9K
Top