Comments on: Riemann hypothesis? http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/riemann-hypothesis/ Recent Progress and Open Problems Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:53:54 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: yoyoyo http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/riemann-hypothesis/#comment-370 yoyoyo Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:58:01 +0000 http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/?p=69#comment-370 What, nobody cares about the recent combinatorial 14 page proof of the Poincare conjecture? For shame! http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0577 What, nobody cares about the recent combinatorial 14 page proof of the Poincare conjecture? For shame! http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0577

]]> By: feldspar http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/riemann-hypothesis/#comment-360 feldspar Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:12:12 +0000 http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/?p=69#comment-360 Alain Connes found a <a>better flaw</a>. Btw, send me an email, Jesse. You know me from college (I saw Willow and Zach and figured I should reconnect with you, too). I'll send you my non-pseudonomous address in return. Alain Connes found a better flaw.

Btw, send me an email, Jesse. You know me from college (I saw Willow and Zach and figured I should reconnect with you, too). I’ll send you my non-pseudonomous address in return.

]]> By: Jesse Johnson http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/riemann-hypothesis/#comment-359 Jesse Johnson Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:26:54 +0000 http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/?p=69#comment-359 It appears that Terry Tao has found a flaw in the proof, which he discusses in a <a href="http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/structure-and-randomness-in-the-prime-numbers/#comment-30714" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on his blog. It appears that Terry Tao has found a flaw in the proof, which he discusses in a comment on his blog.

]]> By: Maurizio http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/riemann-hypothesis/#comment-357 Maurizio Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:01:42 +0000 http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/?p=69#comment-357 Walt: i agree with you that a lot of press attention is not a good thing, i was just saying that a tentative proof should not be totally ignored by the scientific community just because it is a preprint on the arxiv. These proofs should get some more checking before being publicized, as you say they have a high probability of being wrong, and it can be humiliating for the publisher. Regards! Walt: i agree with you that a lot of press attention is not a good thing, i was just saying that a tentative proof should not be totally ignored by the scientific community just because it is a preprint on the arxiv. These proofs should get some more checking before being publicized, as you say they have a high probability of being wrong, and it can be humiliating for the publisher.
Regards!

]]> By: Walt http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/riemann-hypothesis/#comment-354 Walt Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:41:55 +0000 http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/?p=69#comment-354 Maurizio: Why? Most announced proofs of famous results on arxiv are later retracted. Perelman is the only exception that I know of. I think it's fine that they put up the preprints, assuming they've made a good faith effort to find any mistakes, but the more press the result gets, the more humiliating when they have to retract it. Someone announced a solution to the Navier-Stokes problem on arxiv that get sufficient press that it appeared in the newspaper. Someone later found a mistake -- I can't imagine that level of humiliation that person must have felt. Maurizio: Why? Most announced proofs of famous results on arxiv are later retracted. Perelman is the only exception that I know of. I think it’s fine that they put up the preprints, assuming they’ve made a good faith effort to find any mistakes, but the more press the result gets, the more humiliating when they have to retract it. Someone announced a solution to the Navier-Stokes problem on arxiv that get sufficient press that it appeared in the newspaper. Someone later found a mistake — I can’t imagine that level of humiliation that person must have felt.

]]> By: Rohit http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/riemann-hypothesis/#comment-353 Rohit Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:31:27 +0000 http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/?p=69#comment-353 For what it's worth, the author was apparently a student of Louis de Branges who himself claims to have proven the Riemann Hypothesis in 2004. For what it’s worth, the author was apparently a student of Louis de Branges who himself claims to have proven the Riemann Hypothesis in 2004.

]]> By: Index Guy http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/riemann-hypothesis/#comment-351 Index Guy Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:41:31 +0000 http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/?p=69#comment-351 Perelman's proof was not titled "A proof of the Poincare conjecture". So minus a few points for being so flashy. Perelman’s proof was not titled “A proof of the Poincare conjecture”. So minus a few points for being so flashy.

]]> By: Maurizio http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/riemann-hypothesis/#comment-350 Maurizio Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:23:14 +0000 http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/?p=69#comment-350 I don't like your attitude either. Perelman's proof of Poincaré conjecture is a preprint of the arxiv. Of course this is not making me confident of the correctness of this proof, but it probably deserves some attention. I don’t like your attitude either. Perelman’s proof of Poincaré conjecture is a preprint of the arxiv. Of course this is not making me confident of the correctness of this proof, but it probably deserves some attention.

]]> By: Walt http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/riemann-hypothesis/#comment-348 Walt Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:34:22 +0000 http://ldtopology.wordpress.com/?p=69#comment-348 Long experience with arxiv preprints makes me confident the answer is "not correct", no matter how credible the source or research program. Long experience with arxiv preprints makes me confident the answer is “not correct”, no matter how credible the source or research program.

]]>