6 ms·

It's worth noting that one of the authors of the cited paper [1] (Nick Polson) is infamous for claiming (incorrectly) a proof of the Riemann hypothesis [2]. Th

It's worth noting that one of the authors of the cited paper [1] (Nick Polson) is infamous for claiming (incorrectly) a proof of the Riemann hypothesis [2]. This case is somewhat strange because he's not the usual mathematical crank; he's actually a quite well-recognized economics researcher who is clearly mathematically competent. But for some reason he persists. (If you search his name, you can find his YouTube channel where he lectures on his RH work...) [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.09563 https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.09563 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02653 https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02653.

lake_vincent 4y ago
The abstract kills me. "A Hadamard factorization of the Riemann Xi-function is constructed to characterize the zeros of the zeta function." Like, dude, you are claiming to solve a Millennium problem, you're gonna have to put a little more effort into explaining, ya know, the breakthrough... We care about the Riemann Hypothesis not for the theorem itself, but because the methods used to solve it will surely be revolutionary and it's those methods that are important, not the theorem. That's what makes it a Millennium problem. So a paper like this immediately shows the author doesn't even understand why the problem is important, let alone its solution.
- isitmadeofglass 4y ago
  > Like, dude, you are claiming to solve a Millennium problem, you're gonna have to put a little more effort into explaining, ya know, the breakthrough... In the abstract? If papers needed to cover everything in the abstract they would need to have an abstract for the abstract and they you’d just end up complaining about the abstract abstract not being complete…
  - lake_vincent 4y ago
    Right, because only extremes exist... Or you can add, oh I dunno, two or three more sentences to maybe hint at what is novel and important about the approach?
btwillard 4y ago
It's odd that people can't work on something in which they're interested and talk about it publicly without being labeled a "crank". Sorry, there's nothing holy about the Riemann Hypothesis; anyone can add their input to the problem, especially on ArXiV and/or YouTube. You know, that's how discussions can start, and sometimes people want to discuss things with others. It seems like you might think only certain people should work on these special problems, and only if they do it correctly according to you. Your comment is just an ad hominem, so why don't you tell us why you're actually mentioning this? Do you think the math is wrong in the relevant material from the article because of his RH-related musings on ArXiV, or do you have an anti-RH-researcher bias that you want to share with the world? Are you just hating on someone?
- lake_vincent 4y ago
  It's not the discussion that makes you a crank. It's publishing a paper claiming you have solved something that you haven't even begun to understand. It's bypassing peer review. It's ignoring all the literature out there and claiming that is somehow a virtue. You have an interesting idea? Go ahead, please share it! But it's not productive to just start with "Look everybody, I solved it!" It just wastes everyone's time. For example, this paper. It would take a lot of time to sit down and work through the math until I find a specific error in it. But the barren abstract and reference sections strongly suggest that would be a huge waste of my time and energy. Mochizuki pulled this stunt with the ABC conjecture. Wasted YEARS of mathematicians' time just to arrive at the conclusion it was all elaborate mathematical smoke and mirrors. The guy is an egotistical asshole with a messiah complex, and managed to burn a lot of PhD students by chasing his red herring. Not cool.
  - ska 4y ago
    I think a lot of people don't appreciate how open mathematicians are, in general, to work "outside the field" - it's especially baked into the DNA through lessons like e.g. Ramanujan. This guy though, knows what the right way to present the idea would be, but for some reason (ego? knowing it's weak/broken? pique?) chose not to.
  - 4y ago
redox99 4y ago
I think it's pretty mean and doesn't add much, to point out he was wrong about something 5 years ago (even if it's a very well known problem). I certainly wouldn't like it if after submitting a blog post, the top comment on HN is about me being wrong 5 years ago.
- spekcular 4y ago
  He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel. We all make mistakes, and no one would really care if he admitted this. What makes the case notable is that he has enough mathematical training that he should be able recognize the proof is wrong. Especially after the errors are uncovered by others and communicated to him. Continuing to assert the proof is correct after errors have been found is bizarre.
  - btwillard 4y ago
    > He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel. You know that ArXiV and YouTube aren't considered "journals" and don't have a similar requirement for "retractions". It sounds like you think he should hide his shame; otherwise he deserves your attacks. > We all make mistakes, and no one would really care if he admitted this. What makes the case notable is that he has enough mathematical training that he should really be able recognize his proof is wrong, especially after the errors are uncovered by others. Continuing to assert the proof is correct after errors have been found is bizarre. People probably shouldn't, and don't, care because he's not affecting them in any way with his RH-related ArXiV and YouTube musing. More importantly, where are there people showing him how his proof is wrong, and where is he outright denying their points/proofs? It seems like I'm missing a link or two, because I haven't seen any of these things, yet you're referring to them as though they're apparent and damning. My guess is that he simply doesn't get feedback about this stuff, and he probably doesn't even care that much, because this is just a set of ideas with which he likes to work. I've seen no signs of a charged or "high stakes" math community engagement, and definitely not the kind that deserves these unwarranted personal criticisms.

lake_vincent 4y ago

The abstract kills me. "A Hadamard factorization of the Riemann Xi-function is constructed to characterize the zeros of the zeta function." Like, dude, you are claiming to solve a Millennium problem, you're gonna have to put a little more effort into explaining, ya know, the breakthrough... We care about the Riemann Hypothesis not for the theorem itself, but because the methods used to solve it will surely be revolutionary and it's those methods that are important, not the theorem. That's what makes it a Millennium problem. So a paper like this immediately shows the author doesn't even understand why the problem is important, let alone its solution.

isitmadeofglass 4y ago
> Like, dude, you are claiming to solve a Millennium problem, you're gonna have to put a little more effort into explaining, ya know, the breakthrough... In the abstract? If papers needed to cover everything in the abstract they would need to have an abstract for the abstract and they you’d just end up complaining about the abstract abstract not being complete…
- lake_vincent 4y ago
  Right, because only extremes exist... Or you can add, oh I dunno, two or three more sentences to maybe hint at what is novel and important about the approach?

btwillard 4y ago

It's odd that people can't work on something in which they're interested and talk about it publicly without being labeled a "crank". Sorry, there's nothing holy about the Riemann Hypothesis; anyone can add their input to the problem, especially on ArXiV and/or YouTube. You know, that's how discussions can start, and sometimes people want to discuss things with others. It seems like you might think only certain people should work on these special problems, and only if they do it correctly according to you. Your comment is just an ad hominem, so why don't you tell us why you're actually mentioning this? Do you think the math is wrong in the relevant material from the article because of his RH-related musings on ArXiV, or do you have an anti-RH-researcher bias that you want to share with the world? Are you just hating on someone?

lake_vincent 4y ago
It's not the discussion that makes you a crank. It's publishing a paper claiming you have solved something that you haven't even begun to understand. It's bypassing peer review. It's ignoring all the literature out there and claiming that is somehow a virtue. You have an interesting idea? Go ahead, please share it! But it's not productive to just start with "Look everybody, I solved it!" It just wastes everyone's time. For example, this paper. It would take a lot of time to sit down and work through the math until I find a specific error in it. But the barren abstract and reference sections strongly suggest that would be a huge waste of my time and energy. Mochizuki pulled this stunt with the ABC conjecture. Wasted YEARS of mathematicians' time just to arrive at the conclusion it was all elaborate mathematical smoke and mirrors. The guy is an egotistical asshole with a messiah complex, and managed to burn a lot of PhD students by chasing his red herring. Not cool.
- ska 4y ago
  I think a lot of people don't appreciate how open mathematicians are, in general, to work "outside the field" - it's especially baked into the DNA through lessons like e.g. Ramanujan. This guy though, knows what the right way to present the idea would be, but for some reason (ego? knowing it's weak/broken? pique?) chose not to.
- 4y ago

redox99 4y ago

I think it's pretty mean and doesn't add much, to point out he was wrong about something 5 years ago (even if it's a very well known problem). I certainly wouldn't like it if after submitting a blog post, the top comment on HN is about me being wrong 5 years ago.

spekcular 4y ago
He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel. We all make mistakes, and no one would really care if he admitted this. What makes the case notable is that he has enough mathematical training that he should be able recognize the proof is wrong. Especially after the errors are uncovered by others and communicated to him. Continuing to assert the proof is correct after errors have been found is bizarre.
- btwillard 4y ago
  > He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel. You know that ArXiV and YouTube aren't considered "journals" and don't have a similar requirement for "retractions". It sounds like you think he should hide his shame; otherwise he deserves your attacks. > We all make mistakes, and no one would really care if he admitted this. What makes the case notable is that he has enough mathematical training that he should really be able recognize his proof is wrong, especially after the errors are uncovered by others. Continuing to assert the proof is correct after errors have been found is bizarre. People probably shouldn't, and don't, care because he's not affecting them in any way with his RH-related ArXiV and YouTube musing. More importantly, where are there people showing him how his proof is wrong, and where is he outright denying their points/proofs? It seems like I'm missing a link or two, because I haven't seen any of these things, yet you're referring to them as though they're apparent and damning. My guess is that he simply doesn't get feedback about this stuff, and he probably doesn't even care that much, because this is just a set of ideas with which he likes to work. I've seen no signs of a charged or "high stakes" math community engagement, and definitely not the kind that deserves these unwarranted personal criticisms.