Clippy Solves The Riemann Hypothesis

[Solitaire]

After many years of dispensing helpful advice to users of Microsoft software
Clippy lost his job when XP production shut down back in 2004. He now helps
mathematicians out with their most difficult problems. This recent video show
him solving the Riemann Hypthesis.



P.S. Man... Do I go the extra mile when I do these bits.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

How do you solve a hypothesis?

 

[ddt]

How do you solve a hypothesis?

"Prove" would be the right word, as the author of the youtube clip - well, a powerpoint slide show - rightly calls it. That doesn't mean his idea is serious, look at the text:

Of course i have tried submitting to journals but they do not take it into account because i have no academic affiliation or similar, i would like to have a Grant but they do not give me the opportunity to spread my ideas , they prefer 'worse models' such as the Berry-Keating Hamiltonian, even though they give no proof of Riemann Hypothesis ,not even a hint of how to prove it.

So he seems to say "established math is suppressing my ideas", see point 34 on Joan Baez' crackpot index.

I don't quite understand why he'd need a grant, if he's confident how to prove the Riemann Hypothesis, go ahead and do it, it only costs time, pencil and paper - and then you can pick up the Millennium Prize.

BTW, I have no idea whether his ideas are sound, haven't really looked at the slides.

 

[kalen]

So he seems to say "established math is suppressing my ideas", see point 34 on Joan Baez' crackpot index.

Are these lyrics to her new song?

 

[bluesjnr]

Where can I apply to have that 1.52 mins of my life refunded?

 

[ddt]

Are these lyrics to her new song?

Easy mistype, and in fact, they are related:

Singer and progressive activist Joan Baez is his cousin

 

[INRM]

What is the Riemann Hypothesis and what does solving it mean?

 

[ddt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis

 

[TubbaBlubba]

What is the Riemann Hypothesis and what does solving it mean?

Proving the Riemann hypothesis true would (might?) be a great help in understanding the distribution of primes, and developing efficient ways of factorizing and calculating the n:th prime, which can currently only be done by very mundane brute-force algorithms.

 

[INRM]

TubbaBlubba

Proving the Riemann hypothesis true would (might?) be a great help in understanding the distribution of primes, and developing efficient ways of factorizing and calculating the n:th prime, which can currently only be done by very mundane brute-force algorithms.

So this would be useful in code-breaking? (Whenever I hear the term algorithm, I assume code-breaking)


INRM
Remember to be sure to read my signature below...

 

[TubbaBlubba]

So this would be useful in code-breaking? (Whenever I hear the term algorithm, I assume code-breaking)

Hm, possibly - you'd have to ask an encryption expert that. It's a pretty common plot device in fiction for that purpose, anyway.

 

[GodMark2]

So this would be useful in code-breaking?

Yes, current encryption ('codes') is reliant on the fact that finding the prime factors of a number is very hard, while building a number from it's prime factors is easy.

Any 'proof' of the Riemann hypothesis would necessarily have to include a method for proving a way to find the prime factors of a number that is not simply trying all possible combinations (brute force). Such a method would be immensely faster, making encryption easier to break.

 

[Complexity]

Yes, current encryption ('codes') is reliant on the fact that finding the prime factors of a number is very hard, while building a number from it's prime factors is easy.

Any 'proof' of the Riemann hypothesis would necessarily have to include a method for proving a way to find the prime factors of a number that is not simply trying all possible combinations (brute force). Such a method would be immensely faster, making encryption easier to break.

I don't agree that a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis would have to include a method for the prime factorization of integers.

While proving the Riemann Hypothesis would provide insight into the distribution of primes, an algorithm for prime factorization doesn't appear to be relevant to the Riemann Hypothesis, especially not the approach that I am exploring.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

While proving the Riemann Hypothesis would provide insight into the distribution of primes, an algorithm for prime factorization doesn't appear to be relevant to the Riemann Hypothesis, especially not the approach that I am exploring.

Do mathematicians in general even consider such an algorithm - faster than brute force - possible?

 

[geni]

Do mathematicians in general even consider such an algorithm - faster than brute force - possible?

Probably not but that is more an issue of P=NP. Riemann hypothesis is mostly related to a bunch of number theory that is only true if it is true. If it isn't then things get interesting.

 

[Complexity]

Do mathematicians in general even consider such an algorithm - faster than brute force - possible?

Probably not but that is more an issue of P=NP. Riemann hypothesis is mostly related to a bunch of number theory that is only true if it is true. If it isn't then things get interesting.

Not quite.

The complexity of the problem of factoring a number into its prime factors is not yet known. It has not been shown to be in either P or NP - it is in something of a limbo at this time.

If P = NP, Factoring is in P.

If P != NP, the complexity of Factoring is somewhere from P to NP.

The answer to TubbaBlubba's question is: It depends upon the mathematician/algorithmist. Many of us do think that Factoring may accomplished more efficiently that by any brute-force method.

I wouldn't invest in technologies that rely upon the purported intractability of factoring into primes, or trust really important secrets that need to remain secrets for years to encryption based factoring-is-hard.

This is the same as another problem that I'm very interested in - Graph Isomorphism - the problem of determining whether two graphs are identical except for labeling. Graph Isomorphism has not been shown to be in either P or NP. It has temporarily been given its own complexity class, GI, that doesn't resolve anything.

My own suspicion (based on years of wrestling with these problems) is that Graph Isomorphism is in P and that Factoring is in P. I think that Graph Isomorphism and Factoring are closely-related problems and are in the same complexity class.

I also suspect that the Riemann Hypothesis is true.

 

[Meridian]

Do mathematicians in general even consider such an algorithm - faster than brute force - possible?

What does "faster than brute force" mean? In this case, I would interpret "brute force" to mean trial division - there are certainly much faster algorithms. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization#Difficulty_and_complexity ). But none of the known algorithms is anything like polynomial time.