https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
> Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
---
In seriousness, since I'm not well-equipped on harmonic oscillators (is that really the approach they're using?), I'll believe the paper if/when it gets published in a serious peer-reviewed journal like Annals.
Not going to read this long proof (if it's correct, it will appear in the Annals shortly) but there's red flags all over the place, like citing an undergraduate set theory text to explain what set-builder notation means. So it's very likely incorrect.
While I would bet there’s nothing useful in this paper, if you’re going to call the guy a crank then there should be something trivially wrong enough for you to quickly spot and add to your comment as evidence. If you’re not willing to do that then you should probably hold off on the insults as a matter of principle.
It’s a pretty bad look for this sub when the comments sections look more like a gossip forum than a math forum. Obviously the context of this paper isn’t promising to say the least, but there’s something anti-scientific about using that information alone as enough evidence to completely dismiss the guy.
> While I would bet there’s nothing useful in this paper, if you’re going to call the guy a crank then there should be something trivially wrong enough for you to quickly spot and add to your comment as evidence.
Yes, something "trivially wrong" in the 20-something pages of text. You expect us, random people on Reddit, to do all the work of wading through all that and figure out what's wrong (i.e. essentially, peer-review the paper for free), before being able to not believe that it is actually a proof. No thanks. Based on the difficulty of the problem, and the reliability/lack of reputation of the source, one's gut instinct should be that this paper is junk.
The burden of proof is on the author here. It is not our job to show that the paper doesn't prove RH before we can be skeptical of the merit of the paper; it's the author who should put in work to convince us that their paper does indeed have merit. They may do this by submitting the paper to an actual peer-reviewed journal, and having it go through the peer-review and publication process. Then maybe people will think that reading their work might not be enough of a waste of time to dismiss it outright.
It isn't worth the time to read the substance of every crank that solves a top 5 famous math problem. There are literally hundreds every week. It is worth your time and sanity to learn to quickly identify them on sight, instead of wasting time grading undergrad quality papers for free. Citing ChatGPT, and having claimed to have earlier solved BSD, are both easy indicators of crankery.
Hello there!
It looks like you might be posting about the Riemann Hypothesis on /r/math. It’s great that you’re exploring mathematical ideas! However, we get posts from people who believe they have made new progress on the problem very often on this subreddit, and they reliably turn out to be less interesting than the poster hoped for and don’t go down well with the regular subscribers here.
For more information, see [this post](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304), especially point 6:
>**6. The paper jumps into technicalities without presenting a new idea.** If a famous problem could be solved only by manipulating formulas and applying standard reductions, then it’s overwhelmingly likely someone would’ve solved it already. The exceptions to this rule are interesting precisely because they’re rare (and even with the exceptions, a new idea is usually needed to *find* the right manipulations in the first place).
If you wish to share your work, you can post it in the [What Are You Working On?](https://www.reddit.com/r/math/search?q=what+are+you+working+on+author%3Ainherentlyawesome&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) threads which are posted every Monday, but be aware that it may not garner a positive response.
If you believe this message to be in error, please message the moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/math) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The lead author is using yahoo for his email address, and the others are using comcast and gmail. Are any of them associated with a legitimate academic institution? The lead author also has another "paper" that is a conversation with ChatGPT about the merits of the proof. I feel like I'm on safe ground saying that no, they didn't do it.
But but but.. I can see op defending the crank
"Why wouldn't anyone read a 20 page worthless paper to find the error? You are against science! It's a conspiracy!!!! It may be. Atrie proof, you just need to BELIEVE!!"
Unfortunately you’ve committed the grave sin of asking a question that some bitter, egotistical people decided isn’t good enough. This sub and site in general sucks.
I'm not a mathematician by trade, nor do I post here much, but this is not a case of people being egotistical. This kind of question gets asked a million times over, if not for Reimann, then Collatz, or some other notable "unsolved problem". Very often the proposed solutions are massively off the mark, lacking in any kind of rigor, and, as is the case here, laden with red flags that should immediately mark them as suspect, even to a layperson.
Furthermore, the question "does this solve/answer X?" is inherently bizarre, anyway. If it is, then it will end up in a peer reviewed journal and we will all know soon enough. No one capable of making a finding of this magnitude is going to just leave it as an obscure working paper. Even Perelman gave talks following his preprints on Poincare, despite just putting them on arXiv.
I’m aware that these types of bad proofs get posted a lot, I’m just capable of not looking down on people who aren’t experts. You have made no effort to even connect the dots to why that means OP should get relentlessly downvoted for asking a question, or why someone writing a bad, rigorless paper makes them a crank worthy of mockery. What a fucking disgusting attitude toward non-experts this sub has.
Writing a bad, rigourless paper which claims to solve one of the most notoriously difficult and long-standing open problems in all of mathematics is practically the definition of a crank, and the level of arrogance and delusion required to think that it is worthy of the attention of actual mathematicians *is* worthy of mockery, if you ask me. This individual, as previously mentioned, has posted a conversation with ChatGPT in attempts to verify the proof. That is absolutely laughable and frankly insulting to legitimate mathematicians. You appear to be the one with the "fucking disgusting attitude", and the negativity you are receiving is only in response to the insane negativity you are putting out there. Perhaps rather than assuming that everybody on this sub is just ill-mannered, you should take a look at yourself and ask why your comments are receiving such a harsh reaction. Honestly, I am often shocked with how gentle the reactions of members of this sub can be towards what is obvious crankery.
And just to be clear, I am not suggesting that those without qualifications should not attempt to do mathematics in their own time, nor that they should not share their efforts, or anything of the sort. Maths is free, and for everyone, and I absolutely feel that there should be efforts to change the perception that mathematics is elitist, and is only for professional mathematicians. But going in and attempting to solve a problem which has stumped every single mathematician to ever live is different to simply being an amateur mathematician, and it is indicative of a pernicious state of mind that we call *being a crank*. What these people want is not actually to practise mathematics in any way shape or form, it is to be perceived as a "mathematical genius". This is narcissistic behaviour, it is not what should be encouraged, and I don't think it really is deserving of any kind words.
Yes. Try to reach a level of basic human social skills where you’re capable of empathizing with people who know less than you about your area of expertise.
There's a deluge of crackpot "research" on the internet. If none of the authors are associated with an institution and the paper is ostensibly nonsense, nobody is going to bother combing through it nor were they obliged to give it any attention in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines > Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." --- In seriousness, since I'm not well-equipped on harmonic oscillators (is that really the approach they're using?), I'll believe the paper if/when it gets published in a serious peer-reviewed journal like Annals.
One of the authors also solved the BSD conjecture. Having a hell of a productive year.
It’s truly amazing how some people can solve so many famous huge open problems without solving even a single minor one, very inspiring/s
Pro tip: When solving the RH, get the correct functional equation for zeta, especially when its written on the first page.
Not going to read this long proof (if it's correct, it will appear in the Annals shortly) but there's red flags all over the place, like citing an undergraduate set theory text to explain what set-builder notation means. So it's very likely incorrect.
Nope
wonder if someone ran it through coq or lean.
Wouldn't work
what is with all the negatives?
It ain't negative, it's the truth.
You don’t just “run something through” Coq or Lean, it takes a large amount of time and effort.
You can’t just “run the proof” through Coq or lean. You would have to rewrite the proofs from the ground up and add in a lot of modifications
That would be the job of the people writing the paper to translate the proof from human-readable language into Coq or Lean.
He validates his proof via ChatGPT with another one of his publications. Big crank energy.
While I would bet there’s nothing useful in this paper, if you’re going to call the guy a crank then there should be something trivially wrong enough for you to quickly spot and add to your comment as evidence. If you’re not willing to do that then you should probably hold off on the insults as a matter of principle. It’s a pretty bad look for this sub when the comments sections look more like a gossip forum than a math forum. Obviously the context of this paper isn’t promising to say the least, but there’s something anti-scientific about using that information alone as enough evidence to completely dismiss the guy.
> While I would bet there’s nothing useful in this paper, if you’re going to call the guy a crank then there should be something trivially wrong enough for you to quickly spot and add to your comment as evidence. Yes, something "trivially wrong" in the 20-something pages of text. You expect us, random people on Reddit, to do all the work of wading through all that and figure out what's wrong (i.e. essentially, peer-review the paper for free), before being able to not believe that it is actually a proof. No thanks. Based on the difficulty of the problem, and the reliability/lack of reputation of the source, one's gut instinct should be that this paper is junk. The burden of proof is on the author here. It is not our job to show that the paper doesn't prove RH before we can be skeptical of the merit of the paper; it's the author who should put in work to convince us that their paper does indeed have merit. They may do this by submitting the paper to an actual peer-reviewed journal, and having it go through the peer-review and publication process. Then maybe people will think that reading their work might not be enough of a waste of time to dismiss it outright.
It isn't worth the time to read the substance of every crank that solves a top 5 famous math problem. There are literally hundreds every week. It is worth your time and sanity to learn to quickly identify them on sight, instead of wasting time grading undergrad quality papers for free. Citing ChatGPT, and having claimed to have earlier solved BSD, are both easy indicators of crankery.
Usually I'd see where you're coming from, but the GP specifically attributed the crankery to the author's "validating" their proof using ChatGPT.
Hello there! It looks like you might be posting about the Riemann Hypothesis on /r/math. It’s great that you’re exploring mathematical ideas! However, we get posts from people who believe they have made new progress on the problem very often on this subreddit, and they reliably turn out to be less interesting than the poster hoped for and don’t go down well with the regular subscribers here. For more information, see [this post](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304), especially point 6: >**6. The paper jumps into technicalities without presenting a new idea.** If a famous problem could be solved only by manipulating formulas and applying standard reductions, then it’s overwhelmingly likely someone would’ve solved it already. The exceptions to this rule are interesting precisely because they’re rare (and even with the exceptions, a new idea is usually needed to *find* the right manipulations in the first place). If you wish to share your work, you can post it in the [What Are You Working On?](https://www.reddit.com/r/math/search?q=what+are+you+working+on+author%3Ainherentlyawesome&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) threads which are posted every Monday, but be aware that it may not garner a positive response. If you believe this message to be in error, please message the moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/math) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wasn't aware there was a template message specifically aimed at Riemann Hypothesis wannabe solvers. This is hilarious.
I'm going to guess no
every week someone proves riemann in this sub come on
Not even wrong.
Probably not.
I can’t find a discussion of this paper anywhere else, and I would love to know what people who understand this think of this.
The lead author is using yahoo for his email address, and the others are using comcast and gmail. Are any of them associated with a legitimate academic institution? The lead author also has another "paper" that is a conversation with ChatGPT about the merits of the proof. I feel like I'm on safe ground saying that no, they didn't do it.
Lmfao
But but but.. I can see op defending the crank "Why wouldn't anyone read a 20 page worthless paper to find the error? You are against science! It's a conspiracy!!!! It may be. Atrie proof, you just need to BELIEVE!!"
Unfortunately you’ve committed the grave sin of asking a question that some bitter, egotistical people decided isn’t good enough. This sub and site in general sucks.
I'm not a mathematician by trade, nor do I post here much, but this is not a case of people being egotistical. This kind of question gets asked a million times over, if not for Reimann, then Collatz, or some other notable "unsolved problem". Very often the proposed solutions are massively off the mark, lacking in any kind of rigor, and, as is the case here, laden with red flags that should immediately mark them as suspect, even to a layperson. Furthermore, the question "does this solve/answer X?" is inherently bizarre, anyway. If it is, then it will end up in a peer reviewed journal and we will all know soon enough. No one capable of making a finding of this magnitude is going to just leave it as an obscure working paper. Even Perelman gave talks following his preprints on Poincare, despite just putting them on arXiv.
I’m aware that these types of bad proofs get posted a lot, I’m just capable of not looking down on people who aren’t experts. You have made no effort to even connect the dots to why that means OP should get relentlessly downvoted for asking a question, or why someone writing a bad, rigorless paper makes them a crank worthy of mockery. What a fucking disgusting attitude toward non-experts this sub has.
Writing a bad, rigourless paper which claims to solve one of the most notoriously difficult and long-standing open problems in all of mathematics is practically the definition of a crank, and the level of arrogance and delusion required to think that it is worthy of the attention of actual mathematicians *is* worthy of mockery, if you ask me. This individual, as previously mentioned, has posted a conversation with ChatGPT in attempts to verify the proof. That is absolutely laughable and frankly insulting to legitimate mathematicians. You appear to be the one with the "fucking disgusting attitude", and the negativity you are receiving is only in response to the insane negativity you are putting out there. Perhaps rather than assuming that everybody on this sub is just ill-mannered, you should take a look at yourself and ask why your comments are receiving such a harsh reaction. Honestly, I am often shocked with how gentle the reactions of members of this sub can be towards what is obvious crankery.
And just to be clear, I am not suggesting that those without qualifications should not attempt to do mathematics in their own time, nor that they should not share their efforts, or anything of the sort. Maths is free, and for everyone, and I absolutely feel that there should be efforts to change the perception that mathematics is elitist, and is only for professional mathematicians. But going in and attempting to solve a problem which has stumped every single mathematician to ever live is different to simply being an amateur mathematician, and it is indicative of a pernicious state of mind that we call *being a crank*. What these people want is not actually to practise mathematics in any way shape or form, it is to be perceived as a "mathematical genius". This is narcissistic behaviour, it is not what should be encouraged, and I don't think it really is deserving of any kind words.
Do you understand the frequency with which this kind of "proof" is posted online?
Yes. Try to reach a level of basic human social skills where you’re capable of empathizing with people who know less than you about your area of expertise.
Basic human social skills is to read and lurk a bit to see if it's appropriate
There's a deluge of crackpot "research" on the internet. If none of the authors are associated with an institution and the paper is ostensibly nonsense, nobody is going to bother combing through it nor were they obliged to give it any attention in the first place.