/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10019943
>prove the Riemann Hypotheshit

I dont think it will be proven for another millenium

H A P P E N I N G

>>10019943
sorry but literally who

>>10020824
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2180406-famed-mathematician-claims-proof-of-160-year-old-riemann-hypothesis/

Funny how both Atiyah's attempt and Mochizuki's screeching autism make math headlines at roughly the same time. Best case scenario
>Atiyah cements his legacy as the foremost mathematician of the early 21st century
>Mochizuki is reduced to a footnote and a laughing stock

>>10019943
No, He has release several wrong proof in last years.

>>10021023
>Funny how both Atiyah's attempt and Mochizuki's screeching autism make math headlines at roughly the same time.
For real. I can't tell if Atiyah is just getting drowned out by the Mochizuki noise or if people just aren't as interested. Anyway, here's some info on it:
https://twitter.com/HLForum/status/1042670700652318720
https://twitter.com/Quasilocal/status/1042359040305704960
tl;dr: Atiyah is presenting at the Heidelberg Laureate Forum on Monday, Sept. 24. A video of the talk will be available online afterwards. Only people attending may view the abstract but a partial screenshot has been posted that says
>The Riemann Hypothesis is a famous unsolved problem dating from 1859. I will present a simple proof using a radically new approach. It

It sounds to me like Scholze and Stix might actually be wrong. Either way, regardless of which side is right, what's really embarrassing is watching respected members of the mathematics community act like pop-sci math geeks over everything (taking sides and arguing over theory they don't understand).
>Scholze and Stix need to prove that their simplifications don't distort the semantics of the theory. In other words that the issues presented in the simplified theory do indeed translate to the general theory in a meaningful way.
>Mochizuki needs to come up with better and clearer strategies for explaining his concepts (without turning said explanation into 40 page papers). I suspect that an over-emphasis in simplified analogies has caused people to think that the theory is as simple as the analogies.
>People need to accept that the ABC theorem is just a theorem that happened to fall out of IUTch and not the actual purpose of IUTch. Whether or not the ABC theorem is true is not really a big deal and the only reason people are going apeshit over it is because it's a hard problem that's easy to understand and thus has obtained a lot of attention from the general public.

>>10020824
brainlet engineer if you have to ask who he is

>>10019943
yes I did.

>>10021657
>Only people attending may view the abstract but a partial screenshot has been posted that says
what a retarded way

>>10021683
The screenshot was leaked by one of the attendees but the HLF have confirmed it's real.

>>10021657
What is the actual purpose of IUTeich then? abc seems to be literally the only application it has (which makes it quite suspect).

>>10021754
At some point in paper 3 or 4 he gets some relation that "reminds him of the Riemann hypothesis". For all we know atiyah has built on this footnote of mochizukis work

>>10021022
Is there a link to the proof

>>10021754
It's a new field of mathematics that provides a new way to think about and manipulate certain mathematical objects. That's like asking what the point of Topology is.
Mochizuki and other early adapters have constantly tried to warn people that they shouldn't study IUTch if they're just interested in the ABC theorem because it's just a small result that fell out of the theory and there's no guarantee that there will be other related results related to the ABC theorem. To put it in laymen's terms:
>Mochizuki spent years building a small city and everyone is losing their minds over a shiny pebble he found in the process.

>>10021846
Also, inb4:
>b-b-but his city is so complicated that the map he gave us to the shiny pebble is hundreds of pages long and only a few people claim to have seen it. On top of that two big shots made a simplified version of the map and said that in their simplified version the pebble is impossible to find. It also doesn't help to ask Mochizuki because he just gives us more and more pages of maps but everyone's so fucking lost that they don't do shit.
The point is that it's just a fucking shiny pebble! Mochizuki built a city!!

>>10021822
It hasn't been presented yet. No one knows anything. See: >>10021657

>>10020824
i literally cited atiyah yesterday as the first book everybody reads transitioning from babby to grown up math

>>10021846
Here's the thing: this massively complex theory just happens to be powerful enough to prove a specific extremely difficult conjecture and nothing besides. Maybe it's interesting for its own sake too, but certainly the abc proof is suspect.

I really hope he failed, because I want to prove RH!!

>>10021927
Those hundreds of pages are full of proofs to conjectures -- conjectures about IUTch.

Remember the times you had to publish in a peer review journal your results before announcing shit.

>>10021944
You still can you dingus. How many proofs are there for the Pythagorean theorem?

lol, this board is pathetic, the Riemann Hypothesis is likely wrong (the log log version seems to have irregular structures), yet everyone here acts like it's obvious true.

>>10019943
I bet he didn't

>>10021968
the million isn't awarded twice...

>Michael Atiyah
>fields medalist and plenty of other prizes
>math genius
>respected by the academy to this day and constantly invited to do speeches
>gets old
>brain isn't as sharp as it was 50 years ago
>can't make rigorous mathematical proofs anymore
>people respect him so much they're not capable of stopping him even though they clearly should
>he'll make a fool of himself on sept. 26
>the academy will actually let him do this
>the scientific community will see with their own eyes the decadence of a beautiful mind
>mathematicians will see what they'll be like when they get older
>mixed feelings of pity, fear and sadness

Serious question, who the fuck let him do this? Someone hold this man for the love of God.

>>10021944
You're lucky. I wanted to disprove it. Alternative proofs may still exists. But disproofs? Fuck my life.

>>10022150
Damn it, this is exactly what will happen.

>>10022197
NO! Stop jinxing it.

>>10021657
>For real. I can't tell if Atiyah is just getting drowned out by the Mochizuki noise or if people just aren't as interested.
I think it's just that the general expectation is that Atiyah is going to go up there and embarrass himself for 45 minutes.
He's an extremely old man with a recent history of claiming nonsensical "simple" proofs of huge theorems, he's quite likely losing his marbles.

>>10019943
He may have, people often come to conclusions around the same time. I wonder how closely it matches my proof from last year.

>>10021891
Commutative algebra or K theory?

>>10021975
This seems more like a reason to not be certain it is correct rather than a reason to think it's likely wrong.

>>10022311
how is pic related true? brainlet here

>>10021023
i’m rooting for Atiyah; just because I’ll get old one day doesn’t mean shit—fucking stay sharp and you just keep on going

>>10022311
That's retarded: s is a complex variable.

>89 years old
everyone should just go along with it and pretend he got it right until he dies

>>10021967
Wiles' proof wasn't even announced until he started doing the lecture

>>10022150

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yswoUBb8PiA

>I've waited years for this, Goddammit!

>>10022486
As much as I want to hope, it's not looking good. Plenty anons have pointed out how Atiyah's once razor sharp mind has dulled over the years, and how he has published several fallacious papers recently.
I'd rather have Atiyah wrong than Mochizuki right. Keep meming the nip memetician.

>>10022150
It's on the 24th. There will be a live stream.

>>10022482
That's from the definition of complex division.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number

>>10022487
Yup, that's why it's treated as such right from the beginning. You can see it being addressed as such right here as a + bi

>>10021657
You can download the app off of Google play and see the abstract for yourself

>>10019943
>>10021657
There's been departmental gossip about this for a while (he's talked about it before, while it was in progress), and no-one is convinced.

>>10022535
lmao he's losing it

>>10021990
If you can find another proof to the Riemann Hypothesis I guarantee you'll still be able to lock down a pretty amazing job

>>10022862
Not necessarily, I proved it a year ago, as well as the finding the exact prime distribution, creating formulae for the nth prime, the number of factors of a number, the specific factors of a number, and solving the twin prime conjecture, all of which has not been previously publicly done, and yet it's just a specialty of my interests and studies. I have a degree in math and physics, but would only be qualified to teach high school math. Not due to ability, but rather just current familiarity.

P.S. for those interested, the proof I posted earlier, has a step in the middle which may not be immediately clear, but all it is, is separating the positive and negative portions of the alternating sum.

P.S.S. The conceptual portion of the proof I posted is as follows:
Show that there is a bijection(map) between the Riemann hypothesis and the Reverse Fourier transform of the Dirichlet Eta version of the hypothesis and then use that inverse transform to show the functional relationship of the real portion of the complex input.
pic is numfac - 1

>>10019943
I love Wolfgang Pauling.

>>10019943
>trying to prove something that's not true
This is what you guys don't understand
2019 gonna be a fun year xD

>>10022311
This is stupid. The Fourier transform of a function on [math]\mathbb{C}[/math] is not a series. It is a bit more subtle, look up the Paley-Wiener theorem.

>>10020824
Some arab.

>>10021968
Effectively one. They're all pretty much equivalent. The theorem only "works" in one way.

>>10022311
>that whole pic
How is it possible to make such elementary mistakes?

>>10021975
I agree with this. I have been trying to disprove it for a while now. I know I'm not the only one, as other posters in /mg/ have expressed similar sentiments.

>>10023301
And what makes you think YOU are right here?

>>10023333
Intuition and an appeal to complexity. In mathematics, the pathological is the norm.

>>10023222
Misdirecting. The Paley-Wiener theorem relates decay properties of a function or distribution at infinity with analyticity of its Fourier transform. Paley-Wiener is a different aspect of Fourier analysis, as is specifically Fourier Transforms, Fourier Inversion Theory, and Fourier Series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paley%E2%80%93Wiener_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_inversion_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series

The method I posted makes use of the limited structure provided by mainly the 2 topics of Fourier Series and Inverting them. I admit it's part of a larger structure, and that someone who knows it better than I could probably clean it up quite a bit. It's bachelors/low level masters tier and was the limit of my study into the field. Even I struggle a bit in the middle, where the "dummy variable" is used to switch between the index space and the variable space, but I get through it. Swapping spaces was also the limit of my studies, say where linear algebra meets general relativity. All this over 15 years ago too, so I'm rusty, and limited, but it doesn't make it wrong.

>>10023299
haha, I'll wait while you post one. Though I should have been clearer in the middle when I split the even and odd portions of the alternating sums. That's where the real Magick happens, where you realize the whole beauty behind it, that it's based on the 4-way symmetry between the even and odd portions of the real and complex parts.

>>10023301
That poster doesn't understand the nuanced nature of the hypothesis, and it's evident to those who do, I'll explain. The RH is not solely interpreted to say that the real portion of the complex input is always 1/2, but rather, show that it's 1/2 OR show all the counter-examples. So it's incomplete to just focus on the 1/2 aspect as right or wrong. Riemann was saying which is it, not prove this wrong.

>>10019943

So, what results can we expect he will make use of? Abstract mentions works by Hirzebruch (1954), Dirac (1928) and Neumann (1936). Hirzebruch's contribution is most likely the Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch theorem. Dirac in 1928 only published his theory on the relativistic electron, so it can only be these series of papers. Now, knowing that Atiyah did some work concerning Von Neumann algebras, the 1936 paper is probably his joint work with Murray, on rings of operators. Something seems off, I hope this is not a hoax.

>>10023970
I'm thinking Dirac if any. My approach used Fourier, which is closely related to Dirac, so I could see him coming in at that angle.

>>10023775
"we must kill him before it's too late"

>>10023775
before final exams I always think of the date of the exam the way pic related depicts it.

>>10023979
I had a thought about Dirac deltas that turned out to be wrong.

>>10023979
http://www.alainconnes.org/docs/rhfinal.pdf
Crazies old men love RH

It's a load of shit. Riemann is unproveable. Allow me to domenstrite. Allow 7 niggawats to equal one watermoln. From this you can deduce that 72 nulecules manifest as the exponential exponent of kurzweil's paradox.

>>10023778
There is no Fourier series.

>>10021990
kek there are easier ways to get a million bucks pal, like majoring in CS

Nigas really out here working on the riemann hypothesis

>>10023333
those quads speak the truth

>>10022150
Damn it, this is exactly what happened.

>>10022150
Fuck, this is exactly what happened, to a T.

The utter madman actually proved it

There is a video of his talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXugkzFW5qY

He doesn't give a lot of details though.