Jump to content

Has the Riemann Hypothesis has been proved here ?


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

image.jpeg.6813682dcc290fc0e084f8ea92b93e90.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by wtf
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

image.jpeg.6813682dcc290fc0e084f8ea92b93e90.jpeg

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Boson Quark
Grammar correction.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.