[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 40 KB, 554x602, TIMESAND___762wet2c+sut8wdff1qqq1qegg6fwe428.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10302322 No.10302322 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

How about Atiyah's proof? Is he right? Who will get the $1M now that he is deceased?

>> No.10302776
File: 109 KB, 1706x338, Hypothesis Statement Wikipedia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Atiyah's proof was largely viewed as inaccurate, wrong, from what I read, and reading other's comments about it. I looked through it, and could follow much of it, but not all, but yet it still didn't seem right to me either, as the answer would be clearer. There was someone who posted on pol around that time he presented his paper and seemed to sufficiently explain why Atiyah was wrong.

>> No.10303006


I've yet to see one person say they fully understand it and they're confident he is wrong.

All I've seen are hackernews and /sci/ do-nothings critique his latex.

He could be right. I don't think there is any real consensus.

>> No.10303084

Well, I'd have to read it again, but if I remember right it was really poorly written, a lot of mumblings, signs of being past his prime for sure. Not that, that bothered me, everyone gets old. And like I said, I did follow it enough, and know a bit about the hypothesis to write it off as not worth further study. Also, there was someone in hear that spoke directly to the parts I didn't get 100% and seemed to tie up the loose ends, enough for me to let it go. Still, like you say, if someone showed Atiyah was somehow correct, than that's great, but with enough other people who would understand his paper, I would have thought someone else would already have confirmed his work. I think a quick search of articles about his paper shows it largely non favored.

>> No.10303086
File: 56 KB, 1860x389, Hypothesis Statement Wolfram.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


I've actually been working on my attempt for the last 2-3 weeks, I revisit it every so often. I feel like I made progress, I may be on to something. At least, I keep increasing my understanding of the problem. However, I approach it in what would be considered a rudimentary way by many, that is I'm looking for algebraic solutions to the hypothesis.

>> No.10303500
File: 81 KB, 554x602, TIMESAND___1602.01fegrif65eud45fu6gi7h6gf5uef3).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>looking for
>algebraic solutions

>> No.10304409
File: 52 KB, 350x233, TIMESAND___160r212r3a1sdr1sy4uommmmmutgt666fgd45d606456ef3dd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

algebraic solutions

>> No.10304451

His proof was a short nothing that entirely relied on properties of a class of polynomials he didn't include in the same paper. If those polynomials don't have the properties he claims (spoilers, they don't), then his proof is incorrect.

>> No.10304751

>who will get the $1M
do you mean to imply that you will not?

>> No.10304767

Jon, your schizophrenic hallucinations are not helpful or related to Atiyah's erroneous proof of the RH.

>> No.10305304

Lol, yeah some people don't think that something "as important as", or "as special as", or whatever as, the Riemann Hypothesis would be solvable with just algebra and trig and sums.

Hey what's going on over here: >>10305194
you tagging up some attempted solutions around the city, haha. Maybe I should go find a tunnel near me and add mine.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.