I just came across this paper https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Primorial_numbers_and_the_Riemann_Hypothesis/13838111, claiming to prove the Riemann Hypothesis. I'm not an expert on this subject, but the proof seems to be valid. I have also attached the file below.

Primorial numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis..pdf

1 hour ago, Boson Quark said:

I just came across this paper https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Primorial_numbers_and_the_Riemann_Hypothesis/13838111, claiming to prove the Riemann Hypothesis. I'm not an expert on this subject, but the proof seems to be valid. I have also attached the file below.

Primorial numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis..pdf 218.57 kB · 0 downloads

Criticism by Luboš Motl that you may find interesting. He's highly suspicious that there may be flaws in the proof, although he certainly praises Kubalalika for their creativity:

https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/10/some-fun-with-proof-of-riemann.html

If I have understood correctly, for some auxiliary hypothesis to work, the RH itself must be true, so it's kind of a begging-the-question type of objection.

We will have to wait and see some serious peer review by mathematicians.

I just want to add one thing. Sometimes imperfect proofs have the seeds of a really watertight proof in them, once necessary auxiliary investigations are made.

As to the RH, there is a general feeling of pessimism, though:

4 hours ago, joigus said:

once necessary auxiliary investigations are made done.

 

My struggle with grammar...

Nevermind. @joigus already linked the Motl reference that I was about to post. But there's no one-page proof of RH, I'm sure of that. And if RH had been solved we'd have heard about it.

 

Edited February 13, 20214 yr by wtf

1 hour ago, wtf said:

 @joigus And if RH had been solved we'd have heard about it.

 

& why is that? I mean, information is power. Would you share power with someone who may be irrational?

34 minutes ago, IvoryEbony said:

& why is that? I mean, information is power. Would you share power with someone who may be irrational?

Are you saying that if RH was proven the math community would keep it secret?

Did they change the fonts on this site so that the text is so light that I can no longer read it? Probably the same people who are covering up the proof of RH.

I shudder to think what a nutter would do with a powerful theorem.  

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

I shudder to think what a nutter would do with a powerful theorem.  

What even makes you think your rights are protected just because you hear it? Smart people are also careful people.

Just hand out trust to strangers and we can all hold hands and sing combiya and go to a great afterlife as we were promised.

22 minutes ago, IvoryEbony said:

Smart people are also careful people.

In the UK, not necessarily.

21 minutes ago, joigus said:

In the UK, not necessarily.

Emma Watson is from there

I hope she is the exception. We won't see, she's gone rogue. Like me. Total media blackout

 

2 minutes ago, IvoryEbony said:

Emma Watson is from there

I hope she is the exception. We won't see, she's gone rogue. Like me. Total media blackout

 

Is she any closer to proving RH? Maybe rogue is the way to go...

You know... Just to keep on topic by the skin of our teeth.

On 2/13/2021 at 6:13 PM, joigus said:

I shudder to think what a nutter would do with a powerful theorem.  

Why Pythagoras almost destroyed the world!

And think of the trouble learning to count has caused!

3 minutes ago, HallsofIvy said:

Why Pythagoras almost destroyed the world!

And think of the trouble learning to count has caused!

From a not-totally-selfish POV, thanks for appreciating the humour in my comment, @HallsofIvy

 

On 2/13/2021 at 1:28 PM, joigus said:

Criticism by Luboš Motl that you may find interesting. He's highly suspicious that there may be flaws in the proof, although he certainly praises Kubalalika for their creativity:

https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/10/some-fun-with-proof-of-riemann.html

If I have understood correctly, for some auxiliary hypothesis to work, the RH itself must be true, so it's kind of a begging-the-question type of objection.

We will have to wait and see some serious peer review by mathematicians.

It seems Motl's comments are on an earlier (2019) claimed proof of Kabalaika. The recent claimed proof seems to have a different approach to the one described by Motl. By the way, there is a revised version. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13838111

 

On 2/13/2021 at 4:40 PM, joigus said:

I just want to add one thing. Sometimes imperfect proofs have the seeds of a really watertight proof in them, once necessary auxiliary investigations are made.

As to the RH, there is a general feeling of pessimism, though:

Indeed. The first version was a bit complicated for e to read, but i can certainly pass a judgement on the latest and much more elementary version https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13838111. Will give it quick a read.

8 minutes ago, Boson Quark said:

It seems Motl's comments are on an earlier (2019) claimed proof of Kabalaika. The recent claimed proof seems to have a different approach to the one described by Motl. By the way, there is a revised version. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13838111

 

Thanks a lot! That's certainly something to follow up on.

Sure. I e-mailed Kubalalika yesterday. Apparently, he has submitted his final draft (attached below) to some number theory journal for peer-review. Whilst we wait for the experts to pass their verdict, the proof looks quite okay to me...but i wouldn't bet my last dollar on it.

Extraordinary numbers and the Riemann hypothesis.pdf

Edited February 25, 20214 yr by Boson Quark
Grammar correction.

So today I came across this https://www.facebook.com/groups/100386783434193/permalink/2032827933523392/?app=fbl claimed 1-page proof of the Riemann hypothesis on Facebook. After inboxing him, the OP confided that he had submitted his paper for formal peer-review to some journal. 

The argument has too much complex analysis for me to give a serious verdict, but I guess some of you guys do have the necessary expertise to do so.

On 7/12/2021 at 12:44 PM, Boson Quark said:

The argument has too much complex analysis for me to give a serious verdict, but I guess some of you guys do have the necessary expertise to do so.

!

Moderator Note

When you wish to discuss this more meaningfully, send me a message and I'll re-open it.