You are Here: Home

# Riemann Hypothesis Proven? watch

1. I thought people may be interested in this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0609070717.htm.
2. (Original post by mikesgt2)
I thought people may be interested in this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0609070717.htm.
It'll be interesting to see if the 'proof' holds up to close scrutiny or if it fundamentally flawed. If it is a genuine proof this is quite a momentus occasion - bigger than fermats last theorem
3. I don't get zeta functions?!
4. (Original post by shiny)
I don't get zeta functions?!
but think how many people have claimed to prove reemann in the past....
5. (Original post by Katie Heskins)
but think how many people have claimed to prove reemann in the past....
lol I just read the article...
anyone ever read dr riemanns zeros? Louis de branges features in half the book! He's said he's proved it before.
6. There are a number of unsuccessful proofs listed here: http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/zeta/RHproofs.htm.

Clearly I know nothing about the validity of this proposed proof, but it does seem that at the current time there is no independant scrutiny to suggest that this is indeed a correct proof.

Also, I really don't understand the zeta function. It is defined as

zeta(s) = SUM{n=1 -> infinity} 1/n^s

and I know some of the famous results: zeta(2) = pi^2/6, zeta(4) = pi^4/90, ... However, it apparantly has trivial zeros at negative even numbers. This does not make sense to me since we have for example

zeta(-4) = 0
SUM{n=1 -> infinity} 1/n^(-4) = 0
SUM{n=1 -> infinity} n^4 = 0
1^4 + 2^4 + 3^4 + 4^4 + ... = 0

but surely the left hand side is infinity. It just seems to me to be absurd, am I missing somthing?
7. Imagine if it's wrong. twenty oddd years work down the drain.

MB
8. (Original post by It'sPhil...)
It'll be interesting to see if the 'proof' holds up to close scrutiny or if it fundamentally flawed. If it is a genuine proof this is quite a momentus occasion - bigger than fermats last theorem
I don't think this is bigger than FLT. For me, FLT is a lot more compelling problem, it is easy to understand rather than an abstract area of number theory. But, I certainly agree that it is a momentus occasion if it is indeed proven.
9. who judges whether the proof is correct? when does he get his \$1000000? If he's proved wrong does he have to give the money back?

MB
10. (Original post by musicboy)
who judges whether the proof is correct? when does he get his \$1000000? If he's proved wrong does he have to give the money back?
I am not entirely sure. However, I heard that the \$1,000,000 is not given out until the proof has been rigorously checked over a period of 2 years. In other words, they do not give out the money easily.
11. Why has he called it "Apology for the proof of the Reimann Hypothesis"?
12. (Original post by chrisbphd)
Why has he called it "Apology for the proof of the Reimann Hypothesis"?
That's what I thought. He's got ideas about what to spend the money on as well, right at the end.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: June 10, 2004
Today on TSR

### University open days

1. University of Cambridge
Wed, 26 Sep '18
2. Norwich University of the Arts
Fri, 28 Sep '18
3. Edge Hill University
Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
Sat, 29 Sep '18
Poll

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE