My Math Forum > Math Proof of Riemann Hypothesis

 Math General Math Forum - For general math related discussion and news

September 24th, 2018, 03:32 AM   #21
Senior Member

Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia

Posts: 1,801
Thanks: 636

Math Focus: Yet to find out.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Blinov with my wife Blinovsky Vladimir
Ha...

 September 24th, 2018, 03:47 AM #22 Senior Member   Joined: Sep 2016 From: USA Posts: 609 Thanks: 378 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
Banned Camp

Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,720
Thanks: 125

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo A required format for presentations of this magnitude and significance should be that ALL Axioms, A1,A2..., definitions, D1,D2,.... , and assumed Theorems T1,T2.. be listed first, and every deduction refer to them. Deductions would also be listed throughout the paper P1,P2,P3,.. and subsequent deductions would reference previous deductions where relevant. These would also appear at the beginning in the form, for example: P1, D3, A5, T2 ............ P10, D5, A3, P7 P11, P3 P12, D2,D7,T4,T10 ................ In this way a proof schema would be established for the entire paper which could be systematically checked by numerous people, and points of disagreement could be identified and adjudicated. Such a proof schema is known as zylo's proof schema.
Vital Addition: A must include Axioms AND Assumptions.

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: 1,801
Thanks: 636

Math Focus: Yet to find out.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by SDK Its quite sad that somebody allowed this event to happen. One hopes it does not tarnish his legacy.
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 Banned Camp   Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,720 Thanks: 125 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: 7,659
Thanks: 2635

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo Vital Addition: A must include Axioms AND Assumptions. 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.
This is how papers are supposed to work now. And most of them do.

September 24th, 2018, 04:48 AM   #27
Senior Member

Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia

Posts: 1,801
Thanks: 636

Math Focus: Yet to find out.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo Amazing that members of MMF are in the inner circle of those qualified to judge Atiyah's paper- within minutes no less.
I haven't claimed any such things and openly admit I know no more about the RH than a high school student. Nevertheless, there are a few web articles floating around which indicate that the proof was not well received.

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
Banned Camp

Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,720
Thanks: 125

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Joppy 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).
There was an interesting documentary (non-technical) on Andrew Weil's proof of Fermat's Theorem. He often wished to consult with a colleague, but refrained from doing so for fear of losing sole authorship.

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: 20,636
Thanks: 2081

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Joppy . . . let alone a proof by someone who’s 90
I think he's 89.

September 24th, 2018, 07:03 AM   #30
Math Team

Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,659
Thanks: 2635

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo Amazing that members of MMF are in the inner circle of those qualified to judge Atiyah's paper- within minutes no less.
Says the guy that spends half his life claiming to have disproved Cantor.

 Tags hypothesis, proof, riemann

,
,

# atiyah riemann hypothesis is a crank

Click on a term to search for related topics.
 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post jlb Number Theory 1 January 15th, 2015 12:49 PM Vincenzo Oliva Number Theory 12 November 27th, 2014 03:14 PM mathbalarka Number Theory 0 October 31st, 2013 12:54 AM eddybob123 Number Theory 18 May 21st, 2013 06:10 PM joexian Number Theory 5 January 16th, 2013 06:13 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top