A proof of the Riemann hypothesis(arxiv.org)
arxiv.org
A proof of the Riemann hypothesis
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0090
7 comments
He'll have to get in line. [http://secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/RHproo...]
If you peruse the Number Theory papers on the arXiv, you'll see that there is a purported proof of the Riemann hypothesis every few weeks. So far, none of them have been vetted by a professional journal. I'd be very surprised (but happy) if this turned out to contain a correct proof.
A more interesting question would be "Why is this particular proof by this otherwise unknown author getting so much attention?"
If you peruse the Number Theory papers on the arXiv, you'll see that there is a purported proof of the Riemann hypothesis every few weeks. So far, none of them have been vetted by a professional journal. I'd be very surprised (but happy) if this turned out to contain a correct proof.
A more interesting question would be "Why is this particular proof by this otherwise unknown author getting so much attention?"
At least two answers to your question:
1) He authored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%27s_criterion
2) I believe some theorists have already looked at it and I haven't heard anything negative [disclaimer: I'm far from an expert and wouldn't be able to even agree or disagree with their analyses].
1) He authored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%27s_criterion
2) I believe some theorists have already looked at it and I haven't heard anything negative [disclaimer: I'm far from an expert and wouldn't be able to even agree or disagree with their analyses].
Anyone know enough math to be able to tell if this is a serious contender?
This isn't my area, but I know enough to say that he speaks the right language and builds on existing results in the field.
So I'd classify this as a serious contender... in the same sense as other serious contenders have been put forward every 1-2 years for the past 50 years, only to be withdrawn after someone points out mistakes. I'd say that it's almost certain that there are mistakes somewhere in this paper -- the only question is whether they're serious flaws or just minor errors which can be worked around.
So I'd classify this as a serious contender... in the same sense as other serious contenders have been put forward every 1-2 years for the past 50 years, only to be withdrawn after someone points out mistakes. I'd say that it's almost certain that there are mistakes somewhere in this paper -- the only question is whether they're serious flaws or just minor errors which can be worked around.
The author has this named after him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%27s_criterion
I know enough to know the author believes it to be a serious contender. At least it's not some kind of joke.
http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/structure-and-rando...