At the end, he basically says it isn't done, nor a formal proof of RH over Q. Secondly, he thinks RH is undecidable in the Godel sense, and I completely agree.

At the end, he basically says it isn't done, nor a formal proof of RH over Q. Secondly, he thinks RH is undecidable in the Godel sense, and I completely agree. I studied the RH for my Senior Thesis and Godel completeness makes tons of sense here. In terms of the proof, Proof by contraction has always felt like it yields short proofs. The beauty is the in the assumption and the tools afterwards. In fact, the more I read the proof, the more beautiful I find the construction to be. Everything falls out. Thats why its so short. This Todd Function I've never heard of so I need to do some reading. Seems pretty legit to me but, you need alot of understanding here. Source: I have a masters in Math and have studied the RH in depth during those studies.