Riemann Hypothesis

[Anonymous No.11265835]

What subjects you guys think would be necessary in order to prove the Riemann Hypothesis?

Complex Analysis (obviously)
Extensive knowledge of the Riemann Zeta Function
Analytic Number Theory (I guess)
Category Theory (maybe?)

[El Arcón No.11265875]

Fractional distance.

[Anonymous No.11266266]

>>11265835
>Category Theory (maybe?)
cringe

[Anonymous No.11266421]

>>11266266
Why?

[Anonymous No.11266430]

>>11265835
>the undergraduate category theorists thinks he will prove RH
>even though resident schizo already disproved it

[Anonymous No.11266435]

>>11265835
>Extensive knowledge of the Riemann Zeta Function
unneeded.

Jokes aside, the first 3 points are literally just the context in which the problem is already in, so there's no way around them.

I'd guess it's probably related to some ugly independence result.

If it has a modern proof at all, i.e. something along the lines of how all the other versions of the =1/2 statement for the other popular Zeta functions have been proven, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weil_conjectures#Statement_of_the_Weil_conjectures

then yes, you need a category theory
(and a lot more specific things using that language)

[Always-Always/ECHS/KumKum/Soli(...) No.11266443]

Category theory it is!

May intellect no longer be a barrier to sexual freedom and love for all!

Go on girls, grab 'em by the balls!

Categorical orgy = TRUE

[Anonymous No.11266451]

>>11265835
Just throwing this in here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZdlKo9Ee4c

[Anonymous No.11266467]

>>11266443
>group
>normie: if G is a set, a group is a subset of [math](G\tines G)\times G[math] such that for every (a,b,c) in GxGxG, every pair a,b has a distinct b (graph of function) and also ... goes on to state some universally quantified axioms

The right hand side is only complicated because for most cases, math is not formalized at all.
If you want to make universal statements involving various sorts of general structures (not just use group theory theorems in particular cases of of those structures, I.e. instances of group representations as found in other fields of math)
then you have some language and it will be bulky, no way around it

[Anonymous No.11266479]

>>11265835
Lie algebra
p-adic manifolds

[Anonymous No.11267331]

>>11266421
>Why?
Because category theory isn't necessary to prove anything.

[Anonymous No.11267420]

>>11267331
It's necessary to prove insufferability of undergrads has a maximal value

[Anonymous No.11267427]

>>11266430
This

[Anonymous No.11268874]

All you need to define is numbers in the neighborhood of infinity. Just a protip from the schoz proz.

[Anonymous No.11270004]

N=NP

[Anonymous No.11270008]

>>11270004
P = NP
bah