Count Iblis
- 1,859
- 8
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0892"
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
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 said:http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0892"
Dragonfall said:Crackpots don't doubt themselves, so this guy passes the crackpot test.
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![]()
I suppose this is a catch-22, for if they were convinced, I'd generally be even less optimistic.Hurkyl said:I confess if they aren't even convinced, I find it hard to be optimistic.
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!
neutrino said: