My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

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


Thanks Tree25Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
September 24th, 2018, 04:32 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia

Posts: 1,737
Thanks: 606

Math Focus: Yet to find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blinov View Post
with my wife Blinovsky Vladimir
Ha...
Joppy is offline  
 
September 24th, 2018, 04:47 AM   #22
SDK
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: USA

Posts: 520
Thanks: 293

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.
SDK is offline  
September 24th, 2018, 05:26 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
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.
zylo is offline  
September 24th, 2018, 05:27 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia

Posts: 1,737
Thanks: 606

Math Focus: Yet to find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDK View Post
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).
Joppy is offline  
September 24th, 2018, 05:30 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 115

Amazing that members of MMF are in the inner circle of those qualified to judge Atiyah's paper- within minutes no less.
zylo is offline  
September 24th, 2018, 05:42 AM   #26
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,511
Thanks: 2514

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
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.
v8archie is offline  
September 24th, 2018, 05:48 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia

Posts: 1,737
Thanks: 606

Math Focus: Yet to find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
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".
Joppy is offline  
September 24th, 2018, 07:02 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joppy View Post
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 07:47 AM.
zylo is offline  
September 24th, 2018, 07:49 AM   #29
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 19,977
Thanks: 1851

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joppy View Post
. . . let alone a proof by someone who’s 90
I think he's 89.
skipjack is offline  
September 24th, 2018, 08:03 AM   #30
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,511
Thanks: 2514

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
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.
v8archie is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

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 01:49 PM
A proof of Robin's inequality (and so of the Riemann Hypothesis) Vincenzo Oliva Number Theory 12 November 27th, 2014 04:14 PM
Riemann Hypothesis. mathbalarka Number Theory 0 October 31st, 2013 01:54 AM
Proof of Riemann Hypothesis? eddybob123 Number Theory 18 May 21st, 2013 07:10 PM
Proof for Riemann hypothesis and more joexian Number Theory 5 January 16th, 2013 07:13 AM





Copyright © 2018 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.