Comments on: Latest Paper on ArXiv

By: Riemann–Conjecture « Random (not i.i.d.) Thoughts

Riemann–Conjecture « Random (not i.i.d.) Thoughts — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:35:47 +0000

[...] The discussion of Pati’s paper was done by Bernhard Krötz, here. [...]

By: Ars Mathematica » Blog Archive » Final Word on “Latest Paper on ArXiv”

Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:14:54 +0000

[...] Bernhard Krötz has added another update on Tribikram Pati’s preprint. He now reports that the paper does not in fact disprove the Riemann hypothesis. Details provided by a colleague. [...]

By: Bernhard Krötz

Bernhard Krötz — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:01:34 +0000

I remove my last claim and allow myself to refer to some comments
of one of my colleagues at :

http://guests.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/kroetz/RH.pdf

By: Ars Mathematica » Blog Archive » Latest on Latest Paper on ArXiv

Ars Mathematica » Blog Archive » Latest on Latest Paper on ArXiv — Wed, 23 May 2007 03:44:48 +0000

[...] A couple of months ago I linked to Tribikram Pati’s purported proof that the Riemann Hypothesis was false. [...]

By: Bernhard Krötz

Bernhard Krötz — Mon, 21 May 2007 20:31:01 +0000

The proof is correct.

By: Bernhard Krötz

Bernhard Krötz — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 05:56:15 +0000

All Lemmas are correct.

By: Bernhard Krötz

Bernhard Krötz — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:27:57 +0000

Lemma 1 is correct.

By: tg

tg — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 18:57:36 +0000

The text at least looks like it was written by a professional, which
is more than can be said for most crank papers.

By: Richard Bentley

Richard Bentley — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:37:23 +0000

It’s understandable from a psychological standpoint why the mathematics community is generally reluctant to try and check De Branges’ proof, based on his track record with submitting other proofs that turned out to not be true. But it seems strange to me that, going on three years now, there has not been SOME movement in that direction. Generally speaking, historically the first proof for a complex problem is normally difficult to follow, and then once it is verified, more readable ones tend to appear. I am actually somewhat mystified that somone or some group of individuals have not taken the time to make at least a preliminary search for fundamental mistakes in De Branges’ proof.

By: A mathematician

A mathematician — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 03:04:40 +0000

Johan Richter:

Saying something like “I believe this is a correct proof” is unnecessary in a math paper. Of course the author(s) believe the proof is correct, or it would not be out there. You have to understand, mathematicians are impersonal and straightforward in their writing. Saying that one has disproved or proved something is being straightforward, not ‘overly confident.’ If someone finds an error, then the author(s) would have to correct it. It’s that simple. Just because this is a famous problem doesn’t mean the writing has to be more ‘humble.’ It should be written just like any other math paper.

The paper is quite readable to me, although I haven’t gone through it all. Putting references in footnotes is unusual, but it’s a minor stylistic issue and does not affect its readability.