Comments on: Latest on Latest Paper on ArXiv

By: hellblazer

hellblazer — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:12:18 +0000

Update: RH still “safe”

http://www.arsmathematica.net/archives/2007/03/24/latest-paper-on-arxiv/#comment-43721

(Hat tip to John Armstrong)

By: JacquiG

JacquiG — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:34:31 +0000

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.

By: Jonathan Vos Post

Jonathan Vos Post — Fri, 25 May 2007 00:29:47 +0000

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.

By: Jonathan Vos Post

Jonathan Vos Post — Fri, 25 May 2007 00:28:21 +0000

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^*

By: A mathematician

A mathematician — Thu, 24 May 2007 23:14:10 +0000

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.

By: Kea

Kea — Thu, 24 May 2007 22:42:04 +0000

So there is some agreement …

Is that between experts?

By: Doormat

Doormat — Thu, 24 May 2007 08:21:59 +0000

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.

By: Eric Novak

Eric Novak — Wed, 23 May 2007 17:49:38 +0000

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.

By: A mathematician

A mathematician — Wed, 23 May 2007 17:41:55 +0000

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’?

By: Jonathan Vos Post

Jonathan Vos Post — Wed, 23 May 2007 16:44:44 +0000

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).”