who is this person?
Analytic number theorists: your opinion on TK's claimed disproof of the RH ?

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.Send to Augustine for review, check out his email, https://www.wits.ac.za/staff/academicazlisting/m/muamun/augustinemunagiwitsacza/

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.
Selfpromotion or not, the fact is this is a potentially serious paper that deserves a proper evaluation from an expert.
So why present it to a group of economists who aren't qualified to comment on it?

I just checked out Martin Gardner's and Underwood Dudley's lists of characteristics of a mathematical "crank", and it appears TK satisfies only two significant items  that is, (1) he seems to work in isolation from others in the field (from MG's list), and (2) he's a prolific and persistent correspondent (from UD's list). However, TK does exhibit several other characteristics that probably should be included on such lists:
(A) an obsession with trying to solve only the most celebrated problems in mathematics, with no notable track record of successful results on lesser problems;
(B) a failure to recognize certain obvious empirical characteristics of valid mathematical research (e.g., that there's no historical precedent of a mathematician's providing a short flawed proof of a major result and then quickly following up that work with a short correct proof of the negation of the same result); and
(C) an insistence on promoting his work to nonexperts, as though their assent or failure to criticize adds credence to his results.
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.

I just checked out Martin Gardner's and Underwood Dudley's lists of characteristics of a mathematical "crank", and it appears TK satisfies only two significant items  that is, (1) he seems to work in isolation from others in the field (from MG's list), and (2) he's a prolific and persistent correspondent (from UD's list). However, TK does exhibit several other characteristics that probably should be included on such lists:
(A) an obsession with trying to solve only the most celebrated problems in mathematics, with no notable track record of successful results on lesser problems;
(B) a failure to recognize certain obvious empirical characteristics of valid mathematical research (e.g., that there's no historical precedent of a mathematician's providing a short flawed proof of a major result and then quickly following up that work with a short correct proof of the negation of the same result); and
(C) an insistence on promoting his work to nonexperts, as though their assent or failure to criticize adds credence to his results.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.
These are merely heuristic signs that a claimed proof could be wrong.

it's obv wrong and the mistake is probably related to a statement that is assumed to be true but actually isnt. so in fact, not only is the proof wrong but the author doesnt even understand the tools hes using. ljl.
Or maybe it's you who actually doesn't understand the methods the author is using ? If it's cranky as you claim, it sjould be very easy for you to simply POINT out the EXACT error. It's a 4page paper, for goodness sake.

im not a number theorist.
it's obv wrong and the mistake is probably related to a statement that is assumed to be true but actually isnt. so in fact, not only is the proof wrong but the author doesnt even understand the tools hes using. ljl.
Or maybe it's you who actually doesn't understand the methods the author is using ? If it's cranky as you claim, it sjould be very easy for you to simply POINT out the EXACT error. It's a 4page paper, for goodness sake.

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.
Selfpromotion or not, the fact is this is a potentially serious paper that deserves a proper evaluation from an expert.
So why present it to a group of economists who aren't qualified to comment on it?
Instead of trashtalking against something they don't understand, the unqualified ones should just sit back & let the qualified judge this clearly nontrivial piece of work. I'm an algebraic geometer myself, but I also can't find anything terminally wrong in this note.

It isn't trashtalking to suggest that a problem in analytic number theory should be evaluated by qualified mathematicians, not members of an economics forum who can barely stick to the intellectual substance of their own profession. If you're really an algebraic geometer, you undoubtedly have far more qualified mathematical colleagues who could comment on this paper. Why not ask them to look at it?
Instead of trashtalking against something they don't understand, the unqualified ones should just sit back & let the qualified judge this clearly nontrivial piece of work. I'm an algebraic geometer myself, but I also can't find anything terminally wrong in this note.

he posts it here just to tell us how were not smart enough to understand his brilliance. of course real number theorists will find an embarrassing flaw pretty quickly and hell go cry in a corner.
It isn't trashtalking to suggest that a problem in analytic number theory should be evaluated by qualified mathematicians, not members of an economics forum who can barely stick to the intellectual substance of their own profession. If you're really an algebraic geometer, you undoubtedly have far more qualified mathematical colleagues who could comment on this paper. Why not ask them to look at it?
Instead of trashtalking against something they don't understand, the unqualified ones should just sit back & let the qualified judge this clearly nontrivial piece of work. I'm an algebraic geometer myself, but I also can't find anything terminally wrong in this note.

It isn't trashtalking to suggest that a problem in analytic number theory should be evaluated by qualified mathematicians, not members of an economics forum who can barely stick to the intellectual substance of their own profession. If you're really an algebraic geometer, you undoubtedly have far more qualified mathematical colleagues who could comment on this paper. Why not ask them to look at it?
Instead of trashtalking against something they don't understand, the unqualified ones should just sit back & let the qualified judge this clearly nontrivial piece of work. I'm an algebraic geometer myself, but I also can't find anything terminally wrong in this note.
I wasn't necessarily referring to you. I was referring to those claiming that the paper is cranky yet they aren't competent in analytic number theory. As for showing the paper to my colleagues, a couple of them are already looking at it. They are actually the ones who alerted me of this thread.

By the way, not only economists post here. EJMR of late has gained quite a following in the professional mathhematics community.
Indeed, it is rumoured that the 2022 Fields Medals were decided on EJMR. Now, it looks like a candidate for a 2026 Medal was first discovered on EJMR.

his first proof has 7 versions and turns out false. this was over 2 years of work from the timestamps. this is some random guy in zimbabwe. and you think were mean to think this paper is prob wrong? ljl...
it's obv wrong and the mistake is probably related to a statement that is assumed to be true but actually isnt. so in fact, not only is the proof wrong but the author doesnt even understand the tools hes using. ljl.
Or maybe it's you who actually doesn't understand the methods the author is using ? If it's cranky as you claim, it sjould be very easy for you to simply POINT out the EXACT error. It's a 4page paper, for goodness sake.