Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around skepticism regarding a recent claim of proof for the Riemann Hypothesis, with participants expressing doubts about the credibility of the author. There is a comparison made to Andrew Wiles' initial announcement of a flawed proof for Fermat's Last Theorem, raising questions about the validity of the "crackpot test." Some contributors express a desire for expert evaluation of the paper, while others note that previous attempts at proving the hypothesis have often been flawed or withdrawn. Terence Tao's critical perspective on the approach is mentioned, highlighting the cautious stance of established mathematicians. Overall, the conversation reflects a mix of skepticism and curiosity about the ongoing quest to prove the Riemann Hypothesis.
Count Iblis
Messages
1,858
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?
 
Back
Top