4 ms·
The author of this paper has also apparently published a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. yeah idk if they should be trusted as an authority on this.
by JellyYelly 2mo ago
The author of this paper has also apparently published a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. yeah idk if they should be trusted as an authority on this.
- amoshi 2mo agolink for the curious https://philarchive.org/archive/NIEPOT-5 https://philarchive.org/archive/NIEPOT-5
- mikeyouse 2mo agoCrank author at a crank “institution” - I can’t assess whether the OpenAI paper is accurate but I highly doubt this is going to be the paper to disprove it.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoUniversity of Kansas is not a crank institution. So she directs a hybrid thinktank that's experience not anything crazy. Other physicists are citing her work: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00885 https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00885 She's no hack.
- gus_massa 2mo agoIs this published in a serious peer review journal? The Arxiv has a very los publishing barrier.
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoShe is submitting to serious peer reviewed journals. She has released preprints which she is subjecting to community scrutiny. Since the AI papers were released without peer review it was important to address and peer review as a community very quickly
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- cocorebop 2mo agoFrom what I can tell it seems like they are probably wrong, but a mathematician publishing a paper about a well known unsolved problem in mathematics does not indicate they are a crank, even if their paper is wrong. This is a thing respected researchers in mathematics do.
- MoonUnit97 2mo ago[flagged]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[dead]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[dead]