• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Riemann hypothesis has been proved wrong!

becomingagodo

Banned
B
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
695
Oh yeah, is anyone near solving the Riemann hypothesis, I heard about someone trying to use quantum mechanics to prove it correct, however that was like in 80's. How close do you think mathematician are to proving or disproving it? Ten years, twenty, fifty.
I couldn't understand why some mathematician are crazy about prime numbers, however hearing about the Riemann hypothesis and how hard it, made me understand. Also it would be really cool if the Riemann hypothesis was wrong.
 
Ehm, are you just rambling? or do you actually claim that it has been proved wrong..

Because all i see you saying is "it hasn't been proved yet, if it could be proved it would have been proved" which is just bollocks...
 
I saw the post title, and thought uh-oh! Then I thought, no, hang on, that's at least as cool as it being proven true.

Then I read the post. :rolleyes:
 
The Riemann hypothesis has been proved wrong!

Oh bother.

0888_nuclear_explosion_large_clipart.jpg
 
Cuddles said:
Yes. Have a cookie.
Click to expand...

Yipee!

It's a little known fact that we are only 8 feet 3 inches away from proving the hypothesis. Unfortunately we don't yet know in which direction we have to travel that distance. Perhaps its in an entirely different dimension! :jaw-dropp



Any suggestions Oppressed? :D
 
becomingagodo said:
Oh yeah, is anyone near solving the Riemann hypothesis,
Click to expand...

Who can tell? Someone may think he/she's close, but by using flawed logic. Maths doesn't work that way. First you need a proof that seems to hang together, and then it gets put through the wringer by a bunch of mathematicians competent to assess that field of maths.

becomingagodo said:
I heard about someone trying to use quantum mechanics to prove it correct, however that was like in 80's.
Click to expand...

It actually may still be a promising approach, although I think the last effort fell through. I believe it involves analogues between the nontrivial zeroes in the Riemannn Zeta function and the quantum mechanical solutions for electron shells.

becomingagodo said:
How close do you think mathematician are to proving or disproving it? Ten years, twenty, fifty.
Click to expand...

I'd say they're about as close as physicists and engineers are to a practical fusion reactor with a net energy surplus.

becomingagodo said:
I couldn't understand why some mathematician are crazy about prime numbers, however hearing about the Riemann hypothesis and how hard it, made me understand.
Click to expand...

Prime numbers are the basic building blocks of maths, and understanding their apparently random distribution could lead to a sort of grand unified maths. The fact that it's hard to work on only adds to the public interest.

becomingagodo said:
Also it would be really cool if the Riemann hypothesis was wrong.
Click to expand...

Except for everyone who wrote a paper on an hypothesis containing the phrase "Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis is true...", and everone who's written an hypothesis based on those hypotheses. That could be a huge number of papers and an awful lot of maths down the toilet.
 
becomingagodo, allow me to let you in on a little secret.

In the English language, we have something called a past participle. It is almost exclusively used with the helping verb of "to have," or any of its derivatives and/or conjugations.

Thus, you can say:

I proved him wrong.

or

I have proven him wrong.


proven is the past participle of "to prove," with helping verb "to have."

You can NOT say:

I have proved him wrong.

nor can you say

I proven him wrong.


That is my contribution to this thread. Sorry for the derail.

(Incidentally, the title of this thread uses the passive voice. Thus, you will also use a conjugation of "to be." ex: It has been proven wrong. I could go on infinitely. I'll stop now.)
 
Last edited:
The claim in the thread title is a lie. I find that a lot more annoying than the bad grammar.
 
obviously his definition of both "proved" and "wrong" are different from mine.
 
Fredrik said:
The claim in the thread title is a lie. I find that a lot more annoying than the bad grammar.
Click to expand...

Me too, no doubt. But I have neither the knowledge nor expertise to refute his claims, so I leave that to someone more experienced.
 
TheAnachronism said:
becomingagodo, allow me to let you in on a little secret.

In the English language, we have something called a past participle. It is almost exclusively used with the helping verb of "to have," or any of its derivatives and/or conjugations.

Thus, you can say:

I proved him wrong.

or

I have proven him wrong.


proven is the past participle of "to prove," with helping verb "to have."

You can NOT say:

I have proved him wrong.

nor can you say

I proven him wrong.


That is my contribution to this thread. Sorry for the derail.

(Incidentally, the title of this thread uses the passive voice. Thus, you will also use a conjugation of "to be." ex: It has been proven wrong. I could go on infinitely. I'll stop now.)
Click to expand...


Omigod! I'm a fantasy author, and the "passive voice" critique reminds me of critics of my early first draft! Every "was" jumped on like a starving Rottweiler on a pork chop.

Purist though I (now) am, however, I must take issue on the matter of "proven/proved". I think "proven" is more commonly used as the adjective - "that is not proven". The past participle is more normally "to have proved".
 
Big Al said:
Omigod! I'm a fantasy author, and the "passive voice" critique reminds me of critics of my early first draft! Every "was" jumped on like a starving Rottweiler on a pork chop.

Purist though I (now) am, however, I must take issue on the matter of "proven/proved". I think "proven" is more commonly used as the adjective - "that is not proven". The past participle is more normally "to have proved".
Click to expand...

Aha! According Webster's either proven or proved is correct! So perhaps it is time for me to shut up.

(BTW, I wasn't critiquing your use of passive voice. It works fine, I was just noting that it was a different grammatical structure than simply using the past participle.)
 
I read a few articles not too long ago saying that some eccentric Russian mathematician had actually proved it. Does anyone know if the declaration of proof was premature?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom