I'm not sure why I'm not being misunderstood. Math is boundless. Physics is bounded by natural elements. Math can help physics but very rarely would a bounded l

I'm not sure why I'm not being misunderstood. Math is boundless. Physics is bounded by natural elements. Math can help physics but very rarely would a bounded logic structure help the boundless. I agree with a lot of what everyone has been saying to me. But two big objections to your reply: 1. Riemann hypothesis isn't and hasn't been proved. Many mathematicians choose to 'assume it's true' then they come up with other ideas. Also, not rigorous in math = unproven. You can't make those leaps in math. Socially maybe but not in math. If someone were to prove RH is false, then many works will become void because it's based on RH. 2. Physics has limitations. Maths don't. That my point. I find it tough to see a situations where observations (and T. Physics) with it's natural science bound, will aid in any understanding with Maths, let alone RH. I'm sure there are some limited cases but this sensational article acts like 'it's about to happen'. Sigh. Not science.