Beta
×

### Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

# Claimed Proof of Riemann Hypothesis

#### CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the two-scoops-of-math-please dept.

345

An anonymous reader writes "Xian-Jin Li claims to have proven the Riemann hypothesis in this preprint on the arXiv." We've mentioned recent advances in the search for a proof but if true, I'm told this is important stuff. Me, I use math to write dirty words on my calculator.

cancel ×

### Dirty Words (5, Funny)

#### Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031621)

Me, I use math to write dirty words on my calculator.

Such as 80085?

5318008

### Re:Dirty Words (1, Offtopic)

#### G-forze (1169271) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031681)

That would be "58008".

### Re:Dirty Words (1, Offtopic)

#### bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031761)

No, it'd be "5318008".

### Re:Dirty Words (0, Offtopic)

#### Trails (629752) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032537)

You fail at boobies.

### Re:Dirty Words (1)

#### rubah (1197475) | more than 6 years ago | (#24033151)

Luckily the numerals 0, 8 and 5 are three of five that look exactly the same even upside down in liquid crystal notation.

You can continue to turn your calculator 180 degrees, but why bother when you can be reaching into your pants. . . Or wherever mathnerds reach :O
(inside of gabriel's horn moarlike)

### Re:Dirty Words (5, Funny)

#### UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031763)

No, you mean 5318008 or for the slashdot crowd, 55378008

### Re:Dirty Words (4, Funny)

#### Directrix1 (157787) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031985)

No for the slashdot crowd it would be: 58008uÉÉ . Because obviously we all have calculators that support unicode text entry.

### Re:Dirty Words (5, Funny)

#### Directrix1 (157787) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032019)

That would've been a lot cooler if Slashdot supported Unicode.

### Re:Dirty Words (4, Funny)

#### Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032637)

At that point, isn't it safe to assume that our calculators can just draw a pair of boobs in 2-bit greyscale?

And that we've written apps that simulate what we assume bouncing would look like given our collective lack of experience outside of the pornographic realm?

### Re:Dirty Words (4, Funny)

#### Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032037)

On linux, wouldn't it be ...

host:>man 80085

???

### Try this. (-1, Offtopic)

#### Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24031965)

There was a girl named Dolly who had 69 inch breasts. Her doctor said they were 2, 2, 2 big. So, he gave her 51 exercises to do 8 times each day. What was she after that?

### Re:Try this. (0, Offtopic)

#### chaboud (231590) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032197)

There was 1 girl, who was 16, she 69'ed 3 times.

What was she?

### Re:Dirty Words (1, Troll)

#### Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031969)

(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
(X) Microsoft will not put up with it
(X) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(X) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
(X) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

### Re:Dirty Words (-1, Offtopic)

#### Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24032673)

Why don't you 1134206?

### Re:Dirty Words (0, Offtopic)

#### 8ball629 (963244) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032695)

No, he said he uses math to do it so I'm sure it's something more like...

80084 + 1 = 80085

### Re:Dirty Words (2, Funny)

#### JayJay.br (206867) | more than 6 years ago | (#24033107)

Newbie...

correct spelling is "5318008" and you have to look at the calculator "umop apisdn"

Mod me down, I dare you!!!

37047734

### Re:I like to describe my workplace with my calcula (0, Offtopic)

#### theskipper (461997) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032059)

5318008

The true king of beghilos, and one that I think about at least 50 times a day.

### Yeah but did they point this out? (5, Funny)

#### i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031645)

By using Fourier analysis on number fields, we prove in this paper E. Bombieri's refinement of A. Weil's positivity condition, which implies the Riemann hypothesis for the Riemann zeta function in the spirit of A. Connes' approach to the Riemann hypothesis. Weather permitting of course. (Just looking on the positivity side)

### Re:Yeah but did they point this out? (5, Funny)

#### rdwald (831442) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032393)

By using Fourier analysis on number fields, we prove in this paper E. Bombieri's refinement of A. Weil's positivity condition, which implies the Riemann hypothesis for the Riemann zeta function in the spirit of A. Connes' approach to the Riemann hypothesis.

Weather permitting of course. (Just looking on the positivity side)

I thought you were randomly babbling, but then I RTFA and realized you were just quoting it...

### Re:Yeah but did they point this out? (5, Funny)

#### colonslashslash (762464) | more than 6 years ago | (#24033039)

Wait... both of you RTFA?

We have a new /. record!

### Tried to RTFA (5, Funny)

#### multipartmixed (163409) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031657)

Man, where's Charles Eppes when you need something explained to you in layman's terms?

### Re:Tried to RTFA (4, Funny)

#### Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032073)

Ummm...I think that WAS layman's terms. For you math geeks, try being a history major and looking at all that. It just looks like a cat walked on the keyboard to me...

### Re:Tried to RTFA (5, Funny)

#### stranger_to_himself (1132241) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032439)

Ummm...I think that WAS layman's terms. For you math geeks, try being a history major and looking at all that. It just looks like a cat walked on the keyboard to me...

Are you reading slashdot as some kind of anthropological study?

### Re:Tried to RTFA (5, Informative)

#### PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032369)

The Riemann zeta function is \zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^{s}} [written for LaTeX], or "the sum of 1/(n^s) as n goes from 0 to infinity (increasing by 1 repeatedly)" [in more human-readable form].

Riemann was interested in the zeros to this function, where s is a complex number. He conjectured that all zeros (aside from those of the form s = -2c, where c is a positive integer) would have to be of the form (1/2) + ki, where k is a constant and i is the square root of -1.

This paper is saying that they've found a way to verify this intuition by patching a hole in a previous attempt.

Assuming that everything is correct (a big assumption), this would finally solve a long-standing problem (dating back to 1859).

Details of the actual solution are a bit heavy. Those actually interested in this sort of number theory might want to start here [amazon.com] .

### typo (4, Informative)

#### Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032481)

The Riemann zeta function is \zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^{s}} [written for LaTeX], or "the sum of 1/(n^s) as n goes from 0 to infinity (increasing by 1 repeatedly)" [in more human-readable form].

You have a slight typo. Should be: "... as n goes from 1 to infinity ..."

### Numb3rs (5, Funny)

#### netsavior (627338) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032541)

Charles Eppes: Imagine you have an infinite number of plot holes, and you want to test how they compare to imaginary numbers. The Riemann Hypothesis states that I can use the zeros in this formula to predict how bullets will bounce off of concrete to a degree of statistical accuracy that it will actually give me the social security number of the guilty shooter.

### Dolly parton bought a size 69 bra (1, Funny)

#### larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031669)

but it was 222 small. So she took 51 pills, 8 times a day, and ended up...

### Re:Dolly parton bought a size 69 bra (-1, Offtopic)

#### Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24031865)

Gotta get my boxer shorts at K-Mart. .. Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner

### Re:Dolly parton bought a size 69 bra (1)

#### u38cg (607297) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032251)

The version I learnt as a kid: There was a girl of 13, who had a bust of 84. She wanted to make it 45, so she went to the doctor. 0, he said. Take these pills 2 times a day - instead she took them four. Of course, she ended up...

### Re:Dolly parton bought a size 69 bra (1)

#### Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032507)

Does that make me the only person who remembered how "boobless" is spelt and just typed 55318008 into the calculator when they wanted something to snigger at?

### Re:Dolly parton bought a size 69 bra (1)

#### bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032969)

Pardon me for asking, but what the heck are you two talking about? I can't figure it out.

#### nwf (25607) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032491)

That is probably the best explanation I've seen, thanks! And it makes use of LEGO, another plus!

#### camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#24033043)

http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1960.html

Great! Now how am I supposed to get any work done.

### Tough problems (3, Interesting)

#### dj245 (732906) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031975)

Part of the reason these problems are so tough because to solve them, you have to understand what the problem is first. I studied the Riemann hypothesis in college for a good week and I'm still not sure where you might begin solving it. Like the Navier-Stokes equations (another big problem with a big prize) solving it will probably require the invention of some new mathematics. Its not simply a matter of dividing by 3 and carrying the 2. I don't know about you but I haven't the slightest idea about how to go about inventing new math. That's the realm of Newton and Einstein, and few others.

New math is the only way to go about solving some of these problems.

### Re:Tough problems (2)

#### aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032239)

New math is the only way to go about solving some of these problems.

You mean like this? [aol.com]

### Re:Tough problems (4, Funny)

#### afabbro (33948) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032717)

...solving it will probably require the invention of some new mathematics. Its not simply a matter of dividing by 3 and carrying the 2.

If you're carrying numbers when dividing, I guess you are inventing new math :-)

#### Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24032269)

Oh, and this summary of the Riemann hypothesis somewhat obscures its true importance: it is equivalent to a very strong statement about the distribution of prime numbers. For example, the CS paper from a few years ago that gave a deterministic algorithm to check if a number was prime depended on the Riemann hypothesis for some of its results.

#### UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032751)

I looked at the proof and have absolutely no idea what it said. But in the finest slashdot tradition, I WILL have opinions here shortly. Abrasive, loud, and irrefutable ones

#### Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24032815)

The Riemann Zeta function is the zeta function corresponding to the rational number field, thus it would really prove RH. Do you even know, what a number field is?

#### Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24032889)

From the paper:

"To avoid the complication of writings, I only considered the rational number ïeld in this paper. But, I feel that techniques of this paper can be adopted to any algebraic number ïeld without much difficulty to give a proof of the Riemann hypothesis for Dedeking zeta functions."

So no, you're right it's not a full proof, but the claim is that this is pretty all you need, and any proof using a different number field would just look the same. (Though admittedly that claim doesn't seem to be backed up..?)

#### olyar (591892) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032461)

John Nash in "Beautiful Mind" tries to prove this one too.

One of the things I remember from the book is that he and his wife had a running joke that all babies know the solution to this problem and then forget it when they learn to talk. Maybe Xian-Jin Li had a flashback.

#### Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24032613)

Why is the Riemann hypothesis important?

The Riemann hypothesis has a deep connection with prime numbers and proving it will help prove other theorems related to the distribution of prime numbers. This will help make finding the prime factors of large numbers practical and make many widely used cryptographic techniques almost trivial to break. So if the theorem has been proved (unlikely) we could be in for a bit of trouble...

#### A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#24033181)

John Nash in "beautiful Mind" tries to prove this one too.

And I would have succeeded if it weren't for these meddling kids! What do you mean you can't see them?!

### Reimann? (5, Funny)

#### areusche (1297613) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031783)

Reimann? Like the Noodles right?

### Re:Reimann? (4, Funny)

#### Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031951)

It's not just noodles. Its a way of life.

Sure is.

Damn you, OPEC!

### Re:Reimann? (0, Flamebait)

#### PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032437)

::groan::

That joke is nearly a year old [haloscan.com] online, and about 1000 if you've spent any time in a university math department.

### Re:Reimann? (1)

#### areusche (1297613) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032467)

Honestly any time spent in a university math department can be best described as: âz

### Hmmm.... (5, Funny)

#### Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031791)

The only part of it I understood was:

The author is grateful to J.-P. Gabardo, L. de Branges, J. Vaaler, B. Conrey, and D. Cardon who have obtained academic positions in that order for him during his difficult times of finding a job.

Sounds about par for the course for academic hiring, and it sounds like he's still pretty traumatized from it. I hope this works out for him and he can go around flipping off all the hiring committees who turned him down.

### Re:Hmmm.... (2, Informative)

#### Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24032469)

It's brutal trying to try to get into academia in a field that doesn't produce money. The sad thing is that departments want to hire more people but there is never any money or open positions and tenured professors hang onto their positions until they die. Things are a little better in physics than math, but not much (I am an experimental physicist).

I had an undergraduate professor tell us endlessly to NOT go into physics, as it would make us miserable careerwise. I'm still in physics, but most of my friends are not, and I totally understand his point now. I had a history professor tell me that if he knew how hard it would be to get to where he was, he never would have been a history major.

### Re:Hmmm.... (1)

#### Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032665)

And with all the competition, my school still can't hire any decent humanities professors. What's up with that?

### Math =  (5, Funny)

According to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis [wikipedia.org] wikipedia article, this means $1,000,000 if the proof turns out to be valid. Unfortunately, I didn't understand anything else in that article. ### So what? (3, Insightful) #### feijai (898706) | more than 6 years ago | (#24031815) arXiv has become the repository for junk that couldn't pass peer review. Wake me up when we see a published journal article. ### Re:So what? (1) #### 192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032263) Also, the proof of something that complicated is likely so complicated that only the very best minds would even be able to prove that the proof was wrong. ### Re:So what? (5, Informative) #### JambisJubilee (784493) | more than 6 years ago | (#24032335) I think you misunderstand the scope and purpose of arXiv. arXiv is a repository for *preprints*. By uploading the file to arXiv before submitting it, not only do you ensure that those that can't afford$10,000+ subscription fees can access the article, but you open up your findings to a much wider international audience.

The lack of peer review is not necessarily a liability in this situation

### Re:So what? (1, Interesting)

#### Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24032645)

I would hardly consider Perelman's preprints to be "junk that couldn't pass peer review"

### not so fast (5, Informative)

#### Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24031845)

there are "proofs" of the Riemann hypothesis on the arXiv every few weeks. Don't believe it 'til it's vetted.

### fracking Mormons. (-1, Flamebait)

#### Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24033047)

If you'll notice, the author is from Brigham Young University, which is (quite literally) owned by the Moron, er I mean...Mormon cult, er I mean..."church". If there's one thing Mormons are definitely NOT known for, it's their use of rigorous proof.

### You mean that... (1)

#### misterhypno (978442) | more than 6 years ago | (#24033137)

Simple Simon actually met a Riemann, after all?!

I thought that was just a hypothesis!

# Slashdot: News for Nerds

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.

Need an Account?

# Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

• b
• i
• p
• br
• a
• ol
• ul
• li
• dl
• dt
• dd
• em
• strong
• tt
• blockquote
• div
• quote
• ecode

### "ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>