Latest on Latest Paper on ArXiv
May 22nd, 2007 by WaltA couple of months ago I linked to Tribikram Pati’s purported proof that the Riemann Hypothesis was false.
Bernhard Krötz has been working his way through the paper and posting periodic updates in the comments of that post. He has completed this project, and in his opinion the proof is correct.
I would still be surprised if this is really how the Riemann Hypothesis meets its doom, but Bernhard deserves recognition for taking the time to read the paper carefully and keeping us updated.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
This post recently appeared on sci.math.research purporting to find a flaw. Needless to say, I haven’t looked at any of it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 am
Someone comments on the comment, in very simple terms:
“… So the main idea of the author was to show, that we need that delta to proof RH, but there is no delta, so we can not proof RH after all (it is not a disproof but a ‘not proveable’ - statement).”
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:41 am
So there is some agreement - based on our understanding of the paper so far - that the paper has established for a fact that RH is ‘not provable’?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 am
Mathematician:
I think the circular definition leads to the conclusion that a delta with the given properties does not exist, not that the RH is unprovable.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Yeah, Eric is right. The newsgroup poster is claiming that the author at one points says something like “Let Delta>0 to be chosen later”, which is very common in analysis. Then later the author chooses some other constant A* to be less than (a function of) Delta. Finally the author, near the end, sets Delta to be a multiple of A^*. But this is clearly circular. The newsgroup post seems to leave open whether the proof could be fixed, instead seeming to assume that RH must be true. I think the confusion is arising from this.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
So there is some agreement …
Is that between experts?
May 24th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
To Kea:
I don’t know. That’s why I put a question mark at the end of my last post. My question was meant to address Jonathan Vos Post’s quoted comment, as I was trying to understand or make sense of it.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I have published lots of elementary number theory, but the RH is a Mount Everest, which I have not the chutzpa to try to ascend.
It was Julia Kuznetsova whose comment I was referring to. She said, more fully:
Julia Kuznetsova
May 19, 2:15 pm
Newsgroups: sci.math.research
From: Julia Kuznetsova
Date: 19 May 2007 17:15:00 -0400
Subject: Re: disproof of Riemann Hypothesis?
I see a logical error in the paper, namely, a vicious circle when
delta is defined via delta. It is in equations (18) and (20).
If we substitute $\hat\sigma$ into (20), we get inequality of type
$A^*
May 24th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Darn. Her comment has characters which this form assumes are HTML, so it cut off.
Just follow the link from Aaron Bergman’s comment to see the entirety.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I’m just impressed that someone got through the paper. I had such a headache by about page 8 that I gave it up and I’m actually interested in the Riemann Hypothesis.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Update: RH still “safe”
http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/03/24/latest-paper-on-arxiv/#comment-43721
(Hat tip to John Armstrong)