Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around various attempts to prove the Riemann Hypothesis, exploring the credibility of the authors and the nature of their proofs. Participants express skepticism, curiosity, and a desire for deeper understanding, while referencing notable figures in mathematics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express doubt about the validity of recent proofs, suggesting that if the authors themselves are not convinced, it raises concerns about the proofs' credibility.
  • There is a reference to the "crackpot test," with some arguing that self-doubt is a sign of credibility, while others question the validity of the test itself.
  • A participant mentions Terence Tao's skepticism regarding the approach taken in one of the proofs, indicating that even established mathematicians may have reservations.
  • Several participants express a lack of understanding of the mathematical concepts involved, particularly the zeta function, which complicates their ability to assess the proofs.
  • There are mentions of previous attempts to prove the hypothesis, with some noting that past proofs have been withdrawn due to errors, contributing to a sense of uncertainty about the current claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not agree on the validity of the proofs discussed. Multiple competing views remain, with skepticism about the authors' claims and the nature of the proofs being a common theme.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference specific mathematical concepts and notable mathematicians, but there is no consensus on the correctness of the proofs or the reliability of the authors. The conversation reflects a range of opinions and levels of understanding among participants.

Count Iblis
Messages
1,859
Reaction score
8
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0892"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Count Iblis said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0892"
... we may have proved the Riemann Hypothesis...​
I confess if they aren't even convinced, I find it hard to be optimistic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crackpots don't doubt themselves, so this guy passes the crackpot test.
 
I wish I could understand it better even with many years of college math and wikipedia
 
perhaps he tries to be humble... the positivity 'test' of the double integral given by Polya seems correct , perhaps an expert of number theory should take a look at this paper
 
Dragonfall said:
Crackpots don't doubt themselves, so this guy passes the crackpot test.

Did Wiles also pass the Crackpot test when he announced he found the proof of Fermat's theorem, only to discover later that there was a fatal flaw in it [which he was able to fix later at the very moment when he was taking a final look to understand better why he had faled and why he would not be able to succeed (making it easier to put the matter to rest in his mind)].

Or does the Crackpot test itself pass the Crackpot test :smile:
 
Count Iblis said:
Did Wiles also pass the Crackpot test when he announced he found the proof of Fermat's theorem, only to discover later that there was a fatal flaw in it [which he was able to fix later at the very moment when he was taking a final look to understand better why he had faled and why he would not be able to succeed (making it easier to put the matter to rest in his mind)].

Or does the Crackpot test itself pass the Crackpot test :smile:

you pass the crackpot test but fail the reading comprehension test. to pass the crackpot test is to not be a crackpot. you passed since you have doubts.
 
Hurkyl said:
I confess if they aren't even convinced, I find it hard to be optimistic.
I suppose this is a catch-22, for if they were convinced, I'd generally be even less optimistic. :smile:
 
When asked "what if" his general theory of relativity had been disproven by experiment, Albert Einstein replied: "Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct."

Sounds pretty self-assured to me, but he was no crackpot.
 
  • #11
Good lord, that's a hell'a'va proof he has there. I wish I understood the half of it (I barely understand the zeta function by itself...) What do you fella's make of it?
 
  • #12
Just a gut feeling that none of them are even close. Of course I know nothing either.
 
  • #14
Well, far be it for us to question a Fields medalist.

EDIT: Ok I applaud the effort of this auto-keyword-link thing, but this has gone too far!
 
  • #15
Dragonfall said:
Well, far be it for us to question a Fields medalist.

EDIT: Ok I applaud the effort of this auto-keyword-link thing, but this has gone too far!

Heh, yeah. Maybe we can have a list of stop-phrases?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
18K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K