Quant10

4 ms·

1.
by Quant10 4y ago
Dude, x in [1, 2) means 1 \leq x < 2. Anyway, your first comment would make one think that you are an expert in analytic number theory who found some crucial flaw in the proof. But since that's clearly not the case, i won't co
2.
by Quant10 4y ago
I really wonder if you have studied basic analytic number theory, because that bound is actually well-known and is equivalent to the PNT. Anyway, Montgomery-Vaughan explicitly and clearly states in equation 6.12 that there exists some const
3.
by Quant10 4y ago
May you explicitly and clearly point out the integrals you are referring to ? Anyway, by quoting Lubos Motl's blog post of 2018/19, i'm lead to guess you are talking about the integrals on the extreme right-hand side of (13)
4.
by Quant10 4y ago
Can you share the links to those papers which you claim to be logically "similar" to this one? And, if you want to be critical, just point out some part(s) of the proof you believe to be flawed and justify why you think so. That&#
5.
by Quant10 4y ago
I'm a physics major, unfortunately. But i have taken some basic courses in number theory & analysis. As far as i can tell, the argument looks interesting (can't find any serious fault in it). However, i can't say anything
6.
by Quant10 4y ago
I wouldn't know. But from the author's arXiv statement [1] that ..though all of my previous (dis)proofs were flawed, i think the flaws pointed me towards the right direction..." it seems they are quite confident in the curren
7.
by Quant10 4y ago
If there are no significant improvements to the paper by the "second" author, such acts of "sniping" might be treated by the math community as academic theft, and the second author might not get any credit at all. If any
8.
by Quant10 4y ago
If anyone is going to solve the RH, it would be after numerous failed attempts.
9.
by Quant10 4y ago
This was a review of the author's earlier paper of 2018, in which they were actually claiming a proof of the RH. On their arXiv page: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 , the author states that "though all my pr
10.
by Quant10 4y ago
This was a review of the author's earlier paper of 2018, in which they were actually claiming a proof of RH. On their arXiv page: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 , the author states that "though all my previo
11.
by Quant10 4y ago
True, this paper really doesn't look like that of an average crackpot. However, it would be truly astonishing if the RH were to be solved in only 4 pages by some unknown author.
12.
by Quant10 4y ago
Not a math major, but this paper is claiming that the RH is false. Is the claim (proof) valid ?
13.
Riemann Hypothesis Disproved?(figshare.com)
18 points by Quant10 4y ago|40 comments