Reimann Hypothesis solved? Prime numbers have a distribution pattern?

ack · Oct 1, 2018

If true, this is going to be huge in the math world

The Riemann hypothesis is one of seven unsolved "Millennium Prizes" from CMI, each worth US$1 million to the person who solves it.

What is the Riemann hypothesis, and how did Atiyah solve it?

The Riemann hypothesis was first posited by Bernhard Riemann in 1859. It attempts to answer an old question about prime numbers (numbers that divide only by themselves and 1.) The hypothesis states that the distribution of primes is not random, but might follow a pattern described by an equation called the Riemann zeta function.

10,000,000,000,000 prime numbers have been checked and are consistent with the equation, but there is no proof that all primes follow the pattern.

So, the US$1 million prize goes to someone who can prove that the equation applies to all prime numbers. And Atiyah, using a "radically new approach" to the hypothesis, according to his explanation of his solution, thinks he has done it.

https://www.sciencealert.com/top-ma...ld-1-million-maths-problem-riemann-hypothesis

We also discussed the zeta function here https://www.whatsbestforum.com/show...l-numbers-1-12&p=297404&viewfull=1#post297404

What raises my eyebrows though is that the proof https://drive.google.com/file/d/17NBICP6OcUSucrXKNWvzLmrQpfUrEKuY/view appears to be too simplistic, even invoking Deux Ex Machina

4. Deux ex machina

The proof of RH in section 3 looks deceptively easy, even magical, so in this section I will
look behind the scenes and explain the magic. Clearly the function T is the secret key that
unlocks the doors, so I must explain its secret.

DSkip · Oct 1, 2018

What I've always found interesting about mathematical proofs is that very rarely can you prove something directly like you do in the real world - i.e. if Bigfoot is real, then present him. In so many cases the ONLY way to prove something in math is a proof by contradiction.

It's still pretty incredible to me that there are things taken almost as truth but still cannot because we can't mathematically prove them.

zerostargeneral · Oct 2, 2018

Headache inducing extrapolations have not lead me to reject the null hypothesis.Too inconsistent and subservient to prior theories to apply rationally.The non trivial zeros are irrationally theorised as opposed to numerically satisfied,next.

Kindest regards,G.

marty · Oct 2, 2018

DSkip said:
What I've always found interesting about mathematical proofs is that very rarely can you prove something directly like you do in the real world - i.e. if Bigfoot is real, then present him. In so many cases the ONLY way to prove something in math is a proof by contradiction.

It's still pretty incredible to me that there are things taken almost as truth but still cannot because we can't mathematically prove them.

Sounds to me like the Kavanaugh investigation, no?

Search

Search

Reimann Hypothesis solved? Prime numbers have a distribution pattern?

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

DSkip

Industry Expert

zerostargeneral

Well-Known Member

marty

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Staff online

Members online