- #1

- 9

- 0

Hello, I am new to this forum. This is my first post. I come from Sweden, discovered an interest in mathematics when I was fourteen, pursued it in fluctuating vigour for two years until I dropped it completely for a whole three (personal reasons).

Now I'm nineteen, and just a few weeks ago I picked it up again and am, at least in my standards, studying it intensely and in great speed: I'm re-reading the techniques I learned in senior high school, that is courses C, D, E and F, where C begins, more or less, with derivatives and where F ends with, roughly, vectors and matrixes and other things I can barely spell.

Carrying on in this speed I will be done with both C and D in less than ten days, E in less than two weeks, F being unknown since I haven't got that book yet, but likely in that same kind of rate.

* * *

I'm very interested in this kind of stuff. I like to write down little mini-me conjectures which would be easily solved by someone like de Branges or by a lot of people in these forums aswell, but with the little knowledge I have now, they're all very absorbing since I have about... yeah, no advanced mathematical techniques to use at all.

What I've seen so far, peeping at complex problems like the Riemann Hypothesis; reading about people like Gauss, Euler and Riemann himself; reading about the reactions to de Branges purported proof: is that it seems like a vilely cold and cruel twilight world where the one with the highest genius wins, where the one who is sacrificing the largest portion of his private life in search for knowledge and the one who knows the most and has the best connections win the prize.

Look at the purported proof from de Branges latest outburst: few people in the world understands the technical details, and...

and we'll stop there. Few People In This World Understands The Technical Details Presented There. From that I draw the conclusion that proofs on that level is a technical game, and the only thinking processes involved are in learning them and simply using them according to by-and-by-spawned rigorous rules. (As the new technique takes shape.)

It saddens me that there is few or none willing to even look at his proof (I will exclude "purported" because I hope that you understand that it is implied); an American professor waved it away by saying, "...I know it's wrong..." and others do the same pointing at the mistakes he did in the past. Is it just me having the feeling that they just might be doing that in fear that he [de Branges] will beat them to it? A lot of people seem to claim they've found a proof. They lie helter-skelter all over the place. Maybe it sounds ridiculous, maybe it sounds like everybody else, but I heard about the Riemann Hypothesis when I was sixteen, at the peak of my interest, and I've wanted to solve it since. What it looks like now is that I can safely just drop everything and go get a job with big drills instead, given that it looks like a technical game where the college professor having studied the field for the longest amount of time is the winner.

***

The cases I have brought up here are not necessarily meant to be isolated. When I speak of the "technical game" I hope you know what I mean. If not, then perhaps I'll have to come back in a few days with a better explanation. When I bring up de Branges and his proof and the reactions to this I do not necessarily mean only the happenings around that - I mean that with these types of people scurrying around, it is more than just possible that it will happen again. I have seen no ethics in the mathematical community, no moral, no support except to those at your very university, and certainly no joy in thinking but rather satisfaction with new, complex techniques.

***

I hope I am so wrong about all this that I'll regret that I ever posted, but this worries me and disheartens me to continue studying; if I have no way of proving the Riemann Hypothesis (my dream is to do so, or the equivalent, in the future), then why not just drop everything? - if the field of mathematics is a technical terms game then it cannot, ultimately, intersect with my philosophy and view on mathematics in the same degree.

***

I apologize for the long post. It was unskillful and clumsy. But hey, B nice remember I'm new, yo.