/sci/ - Science & Math

fuck off schizo, you didn't prove the riemann hypothesis

Page 2

First they should check whether they are chinese or of chinese descent. If they are, it instantly goes on the trash.
From then on, they should carefully look through each lemma they used, because there's a 90% chance of an error.
Then, assuming they've found nothing, they could consider going to their local university and pestering a random math grad student into finding the mistake for them, but they shouldn't do anything.

>>10328316
Now that's not very nice. I'm just asking what that person should do if they did solve it. What would you do? And let's say I was that person, would you really want to be talking that way to person that solved it?

>>10328327
Ok, thanks for an answer. So you think it wouldn't hurt for that person to push the issue at a local university. Maybe find a professor with some spare time to look at it.
Doesn't \sci also do an ok job of finding obvious errors? If something was egregiously off I would think some anons would find it quickly.

>>10328356
Mate I absolutely guarantee you you haven't proved the Riemann hypothesis through standard complex analytic techniques.

>>10328376
Not me of course, but then if it can't be solved through standard complex analytic techniques any errors in such an approach should be easy to find.Then that person would know what not to do, and learn something in the process. That's good to know.

>>10328376
That would make an interesting proof. Prove you can't prove the Riemann hypothesis using standard complex analytic techniques.

What good comes the solution? I know there are many other problems which are put in terms of the RH, are any of them in and of themselves notable? Could it lead to more efficient algorithms, and thus save people time, or is really just for the edification of some mathematicians?

>>10328295
Mathematics is the langauge of God.
If you're the same mathematician who posted here a few months ago (November, I think), I am glad you're back. I hope to read this once my schedule frees up a bit.

>>10328563
Hey Thanks anon, I agree Math is a Language of the Universe. The proof I'm posting pics of hasn't been around long, so it hasn't been proven or debunked yet, but it seems to have some teeth to it, at least from my amateur point of view. I figured a few on sci could appreciate it, whether it was right or not, it's a good conversation piece.

Interestingly enough, I could see a place like /sci be where the Hypothesis proof first appears or gets some circulation. There are some pretty versed anons out there that just get on the chans and know about all sorts of things. I'm always impressed by some of the stuff I see people knowledgeable about on here.

page 10

Almost done, I was trying not to spam too much at once, only 3 more pages. Might as well post them though, in case someone does want to read through it.

page 12

Nothing like sitting around posting Riemann proofs on a Friday night, am I right?

So here's the final page. The gist of the proof is that the author starts with the Dirichlet eta sum, which is a known equivalent to the RH, breaks the sum into 6 parts, shows when adding the parts makes the original sum equal to zero, shows the relation between the 6 parts, and shows that the only value of the real part that lets the original sum equal 0 is when it is 1/2.

>>10328772
>Q.E.D.

>>10328775
Yeah, funny, right? I think I heard that the author threw that in at the end specifically because they hadn't written many proofs, and never had a chance to before, and you know, that's what people put at the end of fancy proofs, and so they thought it would be fun to just add it.

>>10328295
>what should that person do next?
>Give me the million

>>10328327

Absolutely do not show it to some grad student. That's a great way to get scooped.

OP, (or anyone), this is what you do. If you're convinced that your solution is genuine, you register a very simple private website to yourself, with security, tld, and all the basics. Let me suggest riemannhypothesis.com, which appears to be available.

You upload your proof. Then you preface the whole thing something like as-follows.

"Hello world, my real name is ___ _________. I am a (so-and-so, ameteur/etc) mathematician, and I believe that I've found a solution for the Riemann Hypothesis.

"I realize that the Riemann Hypothesis is a famous problem for which a cash prize is outstanding, and that its solution therefore attracts the attention of many cranks. As a result, I myself might be taken for one of these cranks. I have also entertained the possibility that my proof might contain a mistake. Despite these issues, rather than run the risk of my work being scooped by someone else, I've decided to simply publish what I've done to the internet, so that it can be scrutinized by professional mathematicians, and the general public."

(yadda-yadda pdf)

Also include front-language about the entire website. Say a bit about your thought process, provide a proof sketch, and include a DATED video of you upping the thing live to the internet for the very first time. Then just let it sit. Leave an e-mail address, don't put up some forum where people can leave comments. If the "community" becomes convinced that your thing is genuine, you'll know soon.

Also slightly promote your site in the appropriate places without being a pest about it. You want them to come to you.

Now, if you've made a slight mistake and someone else actually fixes it, thereby being the actual first-prover (happens all the time in math), you have a whole other problem. Still better than being scooped, as you can take historical credit for laying the foundation, even if you don't get the cash.

>>10328840
Honest reply, thanks. I think that's what the author is attempting to do. I'm fairly certain they have a site they could post it to, but maybe getting a small separate site with that name or similar is a better idea.
I also think the author agrees that posting it online, on dated sites, is a way to establish history for the idea and help protect it from poachers.
I think they also are open to it having errors, but have reached the point where that is exactly why they need others to look at it, so that it can be scrutinized by peers. They would be a bit disappointed if huge errors were found, but would be more pleased that someone took time and found them, such that the proof could be altered or abandoned, as they practice radical acceptance.
And yes, if someone fixed it and built of it, I still think they value the credit of foundation as it would be clear where the idea came from.

>>10328526
I think there's a flaw in assuming that the difference between the odd and even real sums is zero unless you assume both are also zero (which isn't guaranteed by the original system of three sums; those only consider the real and imaginary parts of the entire Dirchlet eta sum).
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the proof OP?
t. undergrad

>>10328295

why is the "zeta" in "riemann's zeta function" capitalized but not the "eta" in "dirichlet eta function"?

>>10328295

why is the "zeta" in "riemann's zeta function" capitalized but not the "eta" in "dirichlet eta sum"?

>>10328772
YOU GOT THAT SHIT ANON, BAM, MILLION FUCKING DOLLARSSSSSS BABYYYYYY

Let me explain why this proof cannot be correct.

I've lost count of how many purported proofs of Riemann Hypothesis, P = NP, Collatz Conjecture, Fermat, etc, that I've seen. People have been trying (and failing) to solve these problems for hundreds of years. There are literally hundreds of failed proofs for these problems, there are even sites where people archive these failures. So whenever someone announces a new proof for RH, on an anonymous anime imageboard no less, it is natural to be suspicious.

The reason your proof is wrong is because it is too simple. I admit I did not check your proof line by line, but from a read through, it uses elementary techniques in complex analysis and arithmetic. The most advanced thing I saw was an infinite sum and DeMoivre, which I think people learn in high school. So if this was really a proof of RH, someone would have figured this out decades, if not a century, ago. If this was really a proof, RH would not be a million dollar question. Such a proof using elementary techniques, without discovering something groundbreaking or using a completely new idea, can not possibly be correct.

If you look at recent major proofs, say Perelman's proof for Poincare Conjecture or Wiles' proof for FLT, you'll see that they all introduce totally new ideas, ideas that open up their own field of research, for the proof. There is absolutely no way that there has been a proof for RH that does not involve completely new mathematical ideas.

In summary, basically what >>10328316 said.

>>10328987
what a tool. this is the opposite of "constructive criticism" and is more like "look at me pronounce it wrong by hand waving and making an appeal to authority". while you may be and probably are right, why say this to someone on an anonymous anime imageboard who is probably an enthusiastic young mathematician? you can see it's an earnest attempt by reading any small chunk of it.

so either take the time to try and find a flaw, or don't say anything at all. you're being a douche.

>>10328995
t. butthurt brainlet with delusions of grandeur

>>10328916
I think the explanation to that is mostly page 7 where it says to apply the sum difference test to the left and right halves of the equations. Basically it's a consequence of applying the sum difference rule to larger chains of sums. It makes the statement about what you're asking about in equation 38. Maybe the author should show the work in that section. I think they left it out and just described it because it was a wide equation of 8 sums.

>>10328930
Yeah what is that? it seems to be the convention, I think because it was lower case eta that Dirichlet used.

They would not even tell their shadow.

Proof of RH (yes or no that all zeros are on the critical line) would mean you can create an algorithm on a computer to transfer funds from any bank account, crypto or jew money backed, into yours without a trail.

>>10328987
What is worse than an anon who doesn't know math and shitposts in a math thread? Someone who supposedly knows math and offers zero (0) counterpoints to the actual argument while trying to not fall from his high horse.

Anons, please don't think all mathematicians are the same. This is probably a sophomore ignoramus. OP, I will look through your proof when I get back from work.

>>10329018
>people should read obviously bunk proofs on /sci/ and provide counterpoints

It's great that you feel like doing so, and that you want to encourage OP (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic). But one doesn't need to read the proof closely to know that 14 pages of trivial high school arithmetic is not a proof of the RH.

>>10328995
That's the spirit, the author of the paper is a math enthusiast as you said, and does math as a hobby, and is usually just looking for conversation and discourse.
That poster is just going for the challenge posted here >>10328398 . Great oxymoron by the way, "standard complex analytic". Could you prove you couldn't prove it with standard complex analytic techniques without knowing enough about it to prove it in the first place?

>>10329015
Explain

>>10329058
it's some hokey crap about prime numbers and encryption. i think there was some silly hype about this that made a more subtle argument, but basically if it were true, then why couldn't you just assume RH was true and do whatever they are proposing already? makes no sense imho

>>10328995
>why say this to someone on an anonymous anime imageboard who is probably an enthusiastic young mathematician?

nobody has ever become a successful mathematician by being a nutcase schizo that convinces themselves they've proved one of the world's hardest conjectures

>>10329080

I'm not involved in your argument but I want to re-read your statement to yourself, and say it over to yourself. You may then realize the absurdity of the thing that you wrote.

>>10329074
That's fairly accurate from what I've seen. Calculating primes and doing encryption is related, but different than, the Riemann hypothesis. If you can find primes quickly you can break encryptions based on primes faster. The RH was a question about the parameters and form of a certain sum. Since then, other questions have been put in terms of the RH. Solving it would simultaneously answer many other questions, but wouldn't necessarily equate to faster encryption algorithms, though it might. I think wiki has a list of RH equivalences on one of their pages, though I haven't looked in a bit.

>>10329080
look, /sci/ has given Jon Tooker hours of in-detail criticism. he's updated his "preprints" many times because of technical issues that have been pointed out (but now we all know he's a schizo because he always does some equally or much more incorrect thing to fix it instead of actually learning real math). given that, for sure /sci/ will actually make good criticisms instead of "it looks to basic, therefore i say it can't be right because Perelman haha noob"

http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=07451652310119444800

>>10329121
That's really nice, I would have posted a pdf version for people here had the site facilitated it. I'm sure the author appreciates the re-compiling of the jpgs into a pdf to offer people.

Fuck, I couldn't find an error. I'm going to have to read it over again

[math] \forall n \in \mathbb{Z}, n \not = 0 \implies \eta(1+in\frac{2\pi}{ln(2)}) = 0 [/math]

The proof of this on the wiki, proven in 2 different ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirichlet_eta_function#Landau's_problem_with_%CE%B6(s)_=_%CE%B7(s)/0_and_solutions

The proof should have ran into the issue of showing that the real part is either equal to 1/2 OR equal to 1.
I didn't see any mention of that and I'm not going to read through it all since the A's and B's with a dozen subscripts was giving me a headache.


Not to mention the fact that the author should have immediately stopped when they reached eq 70 and realized there was already a mistake made. You don't reach a contradictory equation and just sweep it under the rug like that.
But I'm betting the biggest error was in the hand wavey manipulation of the A's, B's, C's, S's , Sums, etc
even if the proof was right, those manipulations would be enough justification to claim that the actual proof itself was hideous and most mathematicians would still want a different proof to be made.

>>10330051
> stopped when they reached eq 70 and realized there was already a mistake made.

lol, you mean basically should have stopped at the end of the proof. That part wasn't an error found, and it wasn't just swept under the rug, it fits directly with the nature of the decomposed real even and complex even sums, and it looks like the author explains what you are referring to in the statement about wx plus or minus yz. What you are saying, is that maybe that part needs to be clearer, that's good to know.

> I'm not going to read through it all since the A's and B's with a dozen subscripts was giving me a headache.

what other labeling system would you suggest?

>>10330051
The Landau proofs linked are about the values of s other than 1 that make the given functional relationship true. That's different than starting with the eta and saying that it's zeros must be on the critical strip within its domain of 0 to 1, as the equivalence is given.

There is a small difference though between the eta sum equivalence and the RH sum. For the RH the requirement is 0 <= a <= 1, for the eta, it's 0 < a < 1.

(26) and (27) imply C and S are real
(69) implies that they are both 0
this contradicts (51) and (60)

>>10330301
Ladies and gentlemen, we got him

>>10330301
Proving the Riemann is like learning Japanese. You can't do it

>>10330301
thanks for commenting on the topic.

Yes, that's exactly right, and was what this poster was referring to here >>10330051

That "contradiction" isn't one, it comes from the products of the coefficients and sums in eq.39 and eq.40, and is there because it's comparing those products which much pass the sum difference requirement rather than just comparing 2 sums with no coefficients.

It's the portion at eq.70 starting with "clearly there is no solution for a that make eq.70 possible."

It seems that part could be made clearer, good to know.

>>10330301
Cal me a brainlet but what’s the problem with eqs. 26 and 27? a and b can be complex-valued

>>10330364
a and b are the real and imaginary components of a complex number s, so they must be real

>>10330356
yeah, i was both posts, i couldnt keep up with the words so i just looked at the equations, the clarity issue is my fault as well

>>10330301
>>10330356
Another quick way to say it, is that it's looking at the ratio of the sine and cosine sums, and it means that the real even and complex even sums aren't dependent on the coefficient to make them zero but are dependent on that ratio, and thus dependent on the sine and cosine sums.

>>10330370
>a and b are the real and imaginary components of a complex number s
Thanks, makes sense. I was only going off the equations themselves. Couldn’t be bothered to read the crank’s “proof”

>>10328995
That's not what an appeal to authority is dumbass

No really, I still haven't found anything wrong in here. But then again, I'm not a very good mathematician

This thread has already shown 2 spots that can be cleaned up, and in only a few posts, very nice.

1, Around equation 36, the logic as to why the sum difference test can keep being applied to large groups of sums, and showing an example of the 8 sums equation that leads to the 4 equations in eq.37 and the comment made in 38 would be helpful.

And 2, explaining the part around eq.69 about the C squared plus S squared equaling 0 coming from the product-ratio of the even sums.

so a=infinity in equation 70?

>>10330436
Roughly, yes, as a would go to infinity it would approach 0, but a is a real number, so there is no a that works.

It means there is no value of a that will make the sum and difference of the even sums both zero strictly by the coefficients C and S alone, and that those even sums become zero based on the ratio of the sine and cosine sums to C and S together.

This proof is flawed from the very beginning...

The whole thing is assuming that eta(s) = 0 (equation 2), you are literally assuming what you are trying to prove, then you do some simple arithmetic to show that the variables add up to 0.

What kind of question is this? You publish it in a journal for peer review. If you need money, which you probably will because publishing papers is expensive, take out a loan (since you're confident you proved it and will get a million dollars by the end of it). Find a good journal, submit it.

>>10328295
Try to talk with a big youtuber that you think would be interested in it.

I wish math wannabe could shut the fuck up with their so called "proof".

>>10328295
are you the guy following people around at my uni last week?

>>10328803
Fuck off, you're clearly the author; end this charade.

>>10330461
could you describe this better? you are claiming that equation 70 cannot be solved with any finite a, but then it turns out a=1/2. why doesn't equation 70 hold? what step in how you got to equation 70 doesn't apply generally?

This is pretty cool, but what practices can I take to alleviate my hemorrhoids?

>>10330504
lol, that's the statement of the problem from wolfram, it's not an assumption, it's what has to be true, lol

>>10330613
I don't think the Author was doing that at any Universities lately, so I doubt it was the same person.

>>10330616
Nah yo, you've got it all wrong, I'm just some Math Anon who happened to find this proof laying around somewhere, and may or may not have an idea who it belongs to, hey, maybe it belonged to that guy on the uni. campus.

>>10330647
I think the author will eventually add more about that part to the paper. These for posts here explain the gist of it. >>10330356
>>10330381
>>10330423
>>10330461
In short, 70 doesn't have to hold to make the even sums zero, is the answer. They still have to be zero, but not from 70. They become zero from the product-ratio.

>>10330741
If you're just some guy who found another guy's proof, why are you so keen and gracious on feedback? :thinking:

>>10330504
No, he assumes eta(s) = 0 and goes on to "prove" Re(s) = 1/2. That is perfectly valid reasoning: the error is somewhere between eq. 2 and eq. 74

>>10330241
You're missing the point, the eta function has OTHER ZEROES, those with Re(s) = 1, but you claim, at the end of your proof you claim a = 1/2 is the only possibility. Your proof should have included this possibility, but apparently it doesn't, so it must, somewhere, have an error.
In a sense, this is a non-constructive proof that your proof has an error: it doesn't point out where the error is, it just shows there must be one somewhere.

>>10328295
Send yourself a SEALED package through regular postal service. Then keep this package in a safe place and do not unseal it. This is a 100% receivable proof in court. Keep in mind that there are other methods but this is the only one I could remember. I suggest finding what they are and doing them in addition to the one mentioned above.

>>10330301
lowercase b is for complex tho

>>10330890
s = a + bi
b is real but ib is purely complex

>>10330895
Sheesh right I really need to go to sleep.

>>10328319
The change in the exponent from n-1 to n+1 in eqution 4 just doesn't work and makes equation 8 just wrong.

A proof that doesn't include the taniyama-shimura
theorem can't possibly aspire to solve RH

>>10330937
[math] (-1)^{n-1} = (-1)^{n-1}*1 = (-1)^{n-1}*(-1)^2 = (-1)^{n-1 +2} = (-1)^{n+1} [/math]

>>10330888
Hash the pdf, store the hash on the blockchain, keep the pdf.

>>10330964
Has to be understandable to the average person and/or the average judge.

>>10330803
According to this pic related information from wiki, those other zeroes are coming from the 1-2^(1-s) part of the functional relation for the analytic continuation between zeta and eta and not from the eta sum.

>>10331023
"eta must be zero at all points where the denominator is 0, if the zeta function is analytic and finite there."
jesus christ dude

>>10331023
The eta sum is defined for Re(s) >= 0, and these zeroes have Re(s) = 1, so they are from the eta sum, not the analytic continuation.

>>10331116
excluding the zeros of 1-2/2^s. those zeros are from the factor. when the denominator is zero the zeroes are coming from the pol of the Riemann function at s=1

>>10331129
"The factor 1-2^1-s adds an infinite number of complex simple zeroes, located ..."

>>10331023
>those other zeroes are coming from the 1-2^(1-s) ... and not from the eta sum.
look at the equation
(1- 2^(1-s)) zeta = eta

zeta only has a single pole so it can only cancel one of the zeros of 1 - 2^(1-s)
so eta is 0 when the factor is 0 and zeta is finite.


remove the Math Anon name, it just makes you look worse

>excluding the zeros of 1-2/2^s. those zeros are from the factor. when the denominator is zero the zeroes are coming from the pol of the Riemann function at s=1
this doesnt say what you seem to think it does, read all of it.
it says that we can use the Eta function to analytically extend Zeta to all Re(s) > 0 BUT we exclude the zeroes of the factor since we have 0/0 in the functional equation. But they cancel perfectly, so by taking limits we can recover those inputs except for the pole at s = 1.

>>10328295
First, let Reimann know.

>>10328319
So e^{i b ln n} = cos(b ln n) + isin(b ln n) = n^{i b}? Absolutely not. Your fourth equation is wrong. Your article doesn't read like someone who knows what they're doing. No offence, but this looks like it was written by a crank...

>>10331562
?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_formula
thats not the part you should be complaining about