Close

Complete Captcha

• 5 months - 392 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 866 Goods vs 696 No Goods

1. Economist
   5ebb
   

   I'm not an analytic number theorist, but TK's claimed disproof of the Riemann hypothesis:

   https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Untitled_Item/14776146

   appears to be quite sound and cleverly constructed to me. To be clear, I'm yet to spot any terminal flaw after 2 days of rigorous scrutiny. I'm therefore interested in the opinions of the experts here on the paper.

   For the quality if the discussion, it would help if the comments are as factual as possible. Also, if you don't REALLY know analytic number theory, kindly don't comment on the technicalities of the paper.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 42 Volod 110 Vlad !

2. Economist
   28b3
   

   Why are you posting on a forum for economists?

   5 months ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !

3. Economist
   fc90
   

   Why are you posting on a forum for economists?

   I guess it doesn't do any harm. High quality & interesting mathematical threads are always welcome. See e.g. the Fields Medals threads.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 12 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   a17d
   

   TK has already shown RH to be true
   https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02954

   5 months ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 1 Vlad !

5. Economist
   127a
   

   TK has already shown RH to be true

   From this we can conclude that ZFC is inconsistent. Someone needs to check whether his proof works over PA.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

6. Economist
   9c91
   

   TK has already shown RH to be true
   https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02954

   Comments: The propoed proof is flawed.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   28b3
   

   So the real contribution is that mathematics is inconsistent? d62b, I'd suggest you write this up before somebody else does.

   TK has already shown RH to be true
   https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02954

   5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

8. Economist
   28b3
   

   The interesting empirical question seems to be: What is Pr{author's 4-page proof of ~RH is TRUE | author's 5-page proof of RH is FALSE}?

   5 months ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   c671
   

   TK has already shown RH to be true
   https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02954

   Comments: The propoed proof is flawed.

   The author included a statement on the comment section, explaining the flaw in that particular paper.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    02a0
    

    I'm not an analytic number theorist, but TK's claimed disproof of the Riemann hypothesis:
    https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Untitled_Item/14776146
    appears to be quite sound and cleverly constructed to me. To be clear, I'm yet to spot any terminal flaw after 2 days of rigorous scrutiny. I'm therefore interested in the opinions of the experts here on the paper.
    For the quality if the discussion, it would help if the comments are as factual as possible. Also, if you don't REALLY know analytic number theory, kindly don't comment on the technicalities of the paper.

    One Fields Medal for 2026 taken.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 0 Vlad !

11. Economist
    a732
    

    Tatenda coulda been a contenda!

    5 months ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    e494
    

    The OP's main question seems to be:

    "Can someone who really knows analytic number theory kindly pass a suitable and rigorous verdict on this paper ?"

    I don't think this has been done yet.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 7 Volod 0 Vlad !

13. Economist
    0604
    

    Dearest TK,

    Your self-promotion in this thread is not only transparently obvious, but silly and absurd.

    It only further supports the notion that you are a deranged crackpot with delusions of grandeur.

    I'm not an analytic number theorist, but TK's claimed disproof of the Riemann hypothesis:
    https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Untitled_Item/14776146
    appears to be quite sound and cleverly constructed to me. To be clear, I'm yet to spot any terminal flaw after 2 days of rigorous scrutiny. I'm therefore interested in the opinions of the experts here on the paper.
    For the quality if the discussion, it would help if the comments are as factual as possible. Also, if you don't REALLY know analytic number theory, kindly don't comment on the technicalities of the paper.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 20 Volod 24 Vlad !

14. Economist
    fd75
    

    TK thinks fuggin' integration by parts is gonna make him world famous.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 9 Vlad !

15. Economist
    3e55
    

    another crackpot on ejmr self promoting

    5 months ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 5 Vlad !

16. Economist
    788a
    

    what is TK's race?

    5 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 20 Vlad !

17. Economist
    1cd8
    

    Dearest TK,
    Your self-promotion in this thread is not only transparently obvious, but silly and absurd.
    It only further supports the notion that you are a deranged crackpot with delusions of grandeur.

    I'm not an analytic number theorist, but TK's claimed disproof of the Riemann hypothesis:
    https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Untitled_Item/14776146
    appears to be quite sound and cleverly constructed to me. To be clear, I'm yet to spot any terminal flaw after 2 days of rigorous scrutiny. I'm therefore interested in the opinions of the experts here on the paper.
    For the quality if the discussion, it would help if the comments are as factual as possible. Also, if you don't REALLY know analytic number theory, kindly don't comment on the technicalities of the paper.
    

    The OP is merely asking for an expert opinion on an argument that he AND several people on EJMR have previously found to be interesting. I don't see any self-promotion here.

    To be factually honest, this is a nice paper that deserves a detailed review from someone more enganged with the subject than i.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 17 Volod 2 Vlad !

18. Economist
    b5fe
    

    To those claiming that TK's paper is "cranky", can you point out what the crucial flaw is ? I guess it should be very easy for you to do so.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 8 Volod 1 Vlad !

19. Economist
    3e55
    

    doomb

    To those claiming that TK's paper is "cranky", can you point out what the crucial flaw is ? I guess it should be very easy for you to do so.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 2 Vlad !

20. Economist
    eea0
    

    To those claiming that TK's paper is "cranky", can you point out what the crucial flaw is ? I guess it should be very easy for you to do so.

    Fact.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »