Contrary to what this forum believes, economists are not just failed mathematicians.
saw what you did there.
A proof of the Riemann Hypothesis on the horizon.
-
If you read it on the internet, then it must be true!
(wow...just wow...)Team 1: https://heilbronn.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Garrett-talk-i.pdf
Team 2: https://dantie1.people.uic.edu/akts/bhatt%20-%20prisms%20and%20prismatic%20cohomology.pdf
Team 3: http://www.alainconnes.org/docs/rhfinal.pdf
Team 4: They would like their work to be kept secret until it is ready to be shared with the world.Those are not new. The approaches employed by the "teams" have been known for a long time. Actually, recently there was a conference on Riemann Hypothesis at Bristol, where "experts" (including some mentioned in the above PDF documents) gathered to discuss what they know.
Long story short: Nothing new. Nothing to see here. Just go home.
-
No, OP is right on the money. Bhargav and Peter are really trying to push the tilting philosophy to its absolute limits with deforming cohomology theories and understanding 2 copies of Spec Z. The unnamed fourth group believe the answer really lies somewhere in EGA/SGA, in Grothendieck’s world. Because Connes and his cabal and Bombieri-Garrett are aware that these approaches are all the horizon they are stepping up their game and forced to reflect on their work in a way they have not done so in the past.
My (limited) understanding is that Connes is not at all close.
Garrett's notes do not make him appear to be in the vicinity of a solution at all, though the work is independently interesting.
I can't decipher Bhatt's handwriting, but I feel if he were close to the solution of the RH I would have heard about it.
In conclusion: the OP is full of s**t. -
Please tell us more.
No, OP is right on the money. Bhargav and Peter are really trying to push the tilting philosophy to its absolute limits with deforming cohomology theories and understanding 2 copies of Spec Z. The unnamed fourth group believe the answer really lies somewhere in EGA/SGA, in Grothendieck’s world. Because Connes and his cabal and Bombieri-Garrett are aware that these approaches are all the horizon they are stepping up their game and forced to reflect on their work in a way they have not done so in the past.
My (limited) understanding is that Connes is not at all close.
Garrett's notes do not make him appear to be in the vicinity of a solution at all, though the work is independently interesting.
I can't decipher Bhatt's handwriting, but I feel if he were close to the solution of the RH I would have heard about it.
In conclusion: the OP is full of s**t.
-
https://www.zhihu.com/question/282872987
https://twitter.com/tenjo_no_shimi/status/975786868255133696
Is the existence of Team 4 proven?
-
Let's build an app and crowdsource this. If we get a critical mass of users we can probably solve the problem in 6 months.
- Elon MuskScience journalist: Ok, so the Riemann Hypothesis is proven now, but it was done by an established team, and seemed to have no input at all from this crowd sourced effort?
Musk: you are a pedophile
-
No, OP is right on the money. Bhargav and Peter are really trying to push the tilting philosophy to its absolute limits with deforming cohomology theories and understanding 2 copies of Spec Z. The unnamed fourth group believe the answer really lies somewhere in EGA/SGA, in Grothendieck’s world. Because Connes and his cabal and Bombieri-Garrett are aware that these approaches are all the horizon they are stepping up their game and forced to reflect on their work in a way they have not done so in the past.
My (limited) understanding is that Connes is not at all close.
Garrett's notes do not make him appear to be in the vicinity of a solution at all, though the work is independently interesting.
I can't decipher Bhatt's handwriting, but I feel if he were close to the solution of the RH I would have heard about it.
In conclusion: the OP is full of s**t.
Whatever you say, man. I will ask a number theorist who runs in these circles this afternoon and report back. I'm 90% sure you're full of s**t, because again, if people were really "close" I would have heard about it. Especially if Peter Scholze is involved.
-
Actually, can we reflect on the vacuity of that supposedly insider post for a second? Because it's exactly the kind of thing I would post if I were a know-nothing economist trying to troll people on EJMR. Connes and others are somehow now close to a proof of RH because they started "trying harder," as if they weren't trying hard before? They just woke up one day and decided to overcome serious technical obstacles? This "unnamed fourth group" is going to solve a problem in analytic number theory using techniques from a foundational and well understood 60-year-old algebraic geometry text?
Stranger things have happened, and the weird tweet and Chinese quora question is interesting, but come on. You're likely getting trolled.
-
Actually, can we reflect on the vacuity of that supposedly insider post for a second? Because it's exactly the kind of thing I would post if I were a know-nothing economist trying to troll people on EJMR. Connes and others are somehow now close to a proof of RH because they started "trying harder," as if they weren't trying hard before? They just woke up one day and decided to overcome serious technical obstacles? This "unnamed fourth group" is going to solve a problem in analytic number theory using techniques from a foundational and well understood 60-year-old algebraic geometry text?
Stranger things have happened, and the weird tweet and Chinese quora question is interesting, but come on. You're likely getting trolled.After winning the fields medal 35 years ago, Connes woke up one morning and was all "f**k it, I'm actually going to try hard now", deleted his World of Warcraft account, and picked up a pen and notepad.
-
I work in arithmetic geometry. Given the 4th's research description, it seems plausible. https://alessandromariamas.wixsite.com/alessandro-maria/research
This "unnamed fourth group" is going to solve a problem in analytic number theory using techniques from a foundational and well understood 60-year-old algebraic geometry text?
-
I followed up on the Conrad/Masullo thing. The short story is that the RH rumor exists but seems highly doubtful.
He seems to have made claims to other big results, however.
No, OP is right on the money. Bhargav and Peter are really trying to push the tilting philosophy to its absolute limits with deforming cohomology theories and understanding 2 copies of Spec Z. The unnamed fourth group believe the answer really lies somewhere in EGA/SGA, in Grothendieck’s world. Because Connes and his cabal and Bombieri-Garrett are aware that these approaches are all the horizon they are stepping up their game and forced to reflect on their work in a way they have not done so in the past.
My (limited) understanding is that Connes is not at all close.
Garrett's notes do not make him appear to be in the vicinity of a solution at all, though the work is independently interesting.
I can't decipher Bhatt's handwriting, but I feel if he were close to the solution of the RH I would have heard about it.
In conclusion: the OP is full of s**t.
Whatever you say, man. I will ask a number theorist who runs in these circles this afternoon and report back. I'm 90% sure you're full of s**t, because again, if people were really "close" I would have heard about it. Especially if Peter Scholze is involved.
-
Let's build an app and crowdsource this. If we get a critical mass of users we can probably solve the problem in 6 months.
- Elon MuskScience journalist: Ok, so the Riemann Hypothesis is proven now, but it was done by an established team, and seemed to have no input at all from this crowd sourced effort?
Musk: you are a pedophilegreat