September 24th, 2018, 03:32 AM  #21 
Senior Member Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,706 Thanks: 597 Math Focus: Yet to find out.  
September 24th, 2018, 03:47 AM  #22 
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2016 From: USA Posts: 469 Thanks: 261 Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics 
There is a preprint of his paper out now and he gave his lecture a few minutes ago. Unfortunately, as many people feared, he does not have a proof. Its even worse in fact. The paper and his talk are evidence that he has lost quite a bit of mental faculty. Most of the paper discusses "weakly analytic functions" which he defines in a way that seems meaningless. His definition automatically implies analyticity. It was also pointed out by someone else that his "proof" does not use any properties of $\zeta$ which means he seems to have proved that every analytic function has zeros only on the critical line. Its quite sad that somebody allowed this event to happen. One hopes it does not tarnish his legacy. 
September 24th, 2018, 04:26 AM  #23  
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,529 Thanks: 107  Quote:
A,D,T are generally accepted in the authors broader field, but are of course challengeable. v8archie, for example, might wish to publish a paper challenging someones A,D,T. The A,D,T for such a paper would be quite simple: ZFC.  
September 24th, 2018, 04:27 AM  #24 
Senior Member Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,706 Thanks: 597 Math Focus: Yet to find out.  You'd think he would have bounced his ideas off a close colleague or something.. Though I guess he doesn't care, or really is losing his marbles (assuming the above is in fact true).

September 24th, 2018, 04:30 AM  #25 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,529 Thanks: 107 
Amazing that members of MMF are in the inner circle of those qualified to judge Atiyah's paper within minutes no less.

September 24th, 2018, 04:42 AM  #26  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,445 Thanks: 2499 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
 
September 24th, 2018, 04:48 AM  #27  
Senior Member Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,706 Thanks: 597 Math Focus: Yet to find out.  Quote:
But as he says, "Nobody believes any proof of the Riemann hypothesis, let alone a proof by someone who’s 90".  
September 24th, 2018, 06:02 AM  #28  
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,529 Thanks: 107  Quote:
Why automatically make a negative judgement without knowing the reason for an action? Last edited by skipjack; September 24th, 2018 at 06:47 AM.  
September 24th, 2018, 06:49 AM  #29 
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 19,700 Thanks: 1804  
September 24th, 2018, 07:03 AM  #30 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,445 Thanks: 2499 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  

Tags 
hypothesis, proof, riemann 
Search tags for this page 
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
riemann hypothesis proof?: zeta(s) is never 0 for Re(s)>1/2, flaws? thanks!  jlb  Number Theory  1  January 15th, 2015 12:49 PM 
A proof of Robin's inequality (and so of the Riemann Hypothesis)  Vincenzo Oliva  Number Theory  12  November 27th, 2014 03:14 PM 
Riemann Hypothesis.  mathbalarka  Number Theory  0  October 31st, 2013 12:54 AM 
Proof of Riemann Hypothesis?  eddybob123  Number Theory  18  May 21st, 2013 06:10 PM 
Proof for Riemann hypothesis and more  joexian  Number Theory  5  January 16th, 2013 06:13 AM 