Slashdot Mirror


A Step Towards Proving the Riemann Hypothesis

arbitraryaardvark writes "A new mathematical object has been discovered by Bristol University student Ce Bian. The Riemann hypothesis, unproven since 1859, has to do with the distribution of primes and something called L-functions. Bian has demonstrated the first known third-degree transcendental L-function. This apparently opens up a new way to go about looking for proofs of the Riemann hypothesis. There is an unclaimed $1 million prize for a valid proof. We've discussed a couple of earlier attempts to claim the prize."

133 comments

  1. I see a future of by LM741N · · Score: 1

    Reimann botnets infiltrating hundreds of thousands of computers to work on the solution. Unfortunately, Comcast finds out and starts throttling their internet bandwidth. Math is set back 100 years.

    1. Re:I see a future of by tuaris · · Score: 1
      --
      President/CEO Pacy World http://www.pacyworld.com
  2. Re:Proof of Hypnosis? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Regardless of the money,
    Ce Bian and Andrew Booker (and their computer) should at least win SOME prize and may need to practice their Sweedish.....

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  3. My own personal proof by explosivejared · · Score: 4, Funny

    Non-trivial zeroes of the zeta function are 1/2 because they naturally form as wholes, but as we all know a grue can't resist the tasty flesh of a non-trivial zero. I posit that the only way to prove the hypothesis is to kill a grue and vivisect it to search for the other half of the non-trivial zero. So until someone is brave enough to fight a grue and extract the flesh of the non-trivial zero, that million dollars is going unclaimed.

    --
    I got a catholic block.
    1. Re:My own personal proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...as we all know a grue can't resist the tasty flesh of a non-trivial zero. True enough. The interesting nature of non-trivial solutions is apparent to all; grue and non-grue alike.

      I posit that the only way to prove the hypothesis is to kill a grue and vivisect it... But not in that order! "Vivisection" means dissection while alive. You'd need to capture a live and viable grue and then not kill it until (too early in the) dissection.

      So until someone is brave enough to fight a grue and extract the flesh of the non-trivial zero, that million dollars is going unclaimed. Mathematicians are known to go adventuring from time to time, but mostly they seem to prefer coffee or tea for the extraction of proofs from the darkness.
    2. Re:My own personal proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      As we all know, attempting to vivisect a grue after its untimely demise will only result in self-inflicted vocabular impugnation.

    3. Re:My own personal proof by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Um, if you do it after it's untimely demise, it's not vivisection.

    4. Re:My own personal proof by kalirion · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently I fail at reading comprehension. I blame public schooling.

    5. Re:My own personal proof by amorri09 · · Score: 1

      Do I get to use my flashlight?

    6. Re:My own personal proof by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      You also fail at apostrophes.

      HOUSED.

    7. Re:My own personal proof by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      As vivisection requires that the entity being dissected be alive at the time of dissection, hence the very definition of the word vivisection. You can't kill the grue then dissect it, you must capture it alive then find a way to secure it so you can vivisect it. My guess would be that the grue wouldn't like being vivisected and as a result the search for the non-trivial zero will involve the division of blood and flesh of the searcher, possibly by an amount of blood and flesh such that you end up with an imaginary number. And we all know what happens when imaginary numbers and grue's collide and it ain't pretty.

    8. Re:My own personal proof by popmaker · · Score: 1

      Hence the "self-inflicted vocabulary impugnation".

      Like when you try to eat a kilowatt of yellow.

  4. I wonder... by Agilis · · Score: 1

    If all the theorems/lemmas/etc used in the ultimate proof were each given an even share of the $1M, and we followed things back recursively, how much money would each person get.

    1. Re:I wonder... by amorri09 · · Score: 1

      Lol it depends wether your gonan take into account a few hundred years of inflation or not....

  5. I have already solved this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...But unfortunately I do not have
    enough room in the margin of this
    text area to display it properly.

    1. Re:I have already solved this! by popmaker · · Score: 5, Funny

      am on ship on way to england stop have solved riemann hypothesis stop will give details on return stop

    2. Re:I have already solved this! by 00_NOP · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Fermat really did have a proof. Thoughts?

    3. Re:I have already solved this! by SpecTheIntro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know, there's a lot of speculation about that. I suspect he did have a proof, but I'm skeptical that it was correct. There's no doubt that the man was brilliant but we've had people working on that question ever since Fermat died and no one has been able to produce a "simple, elegant" proof. (Fermat's own description, there.) But there's plenty of precedent for mathematicians making things inordinately complex before some young genius comes along and shows a magnificently simple way of achieving the same thing.

    4. Re:I have already solved this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fermat was notorious for bragging about his accomplishments, yet he never mentioned his "Last Theorem" to anyone; it appears only as a marginal comment in a book he owned. He did mention special cases of it (exponents 3 and 4), so the best bet is that he (like hundreds of later mathematicians) thought he had a proof that worked in general, but later realized his mistake.

    5. Re:I have already solved this! by svtdragon · · Score: 1

      "My butter, garcon, is writ large in!"
      A party was heard to be chargin'.
      "I had to write there!"
      Exclaimed waiter Pierre,
      "I couldn't find room in the margarine!"

    6. Re:I have already solved this! by superwiz · · Score: 1

      phew... another lawyer.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    7. Re:I have already solved this! by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've long since forgotten the details, but there is a "proof" along the lines of his previous proofs that is simple, elegant and wrong. Most likely that was his proof and when he realized the flaws he never published it, so all that's left is an overly excited comment in a margin. Of course, that's an incredibly boring and everyday explaination, so it's usually discarded in favor of mystery and legend.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:I have already solved this! by xactuary · · Score: 1
      I would say that you solved it anonymously, and were too much of a coward to display it.

      In the interest of full disclosure, I am a paid troll for Tyrell Corporation, and think I may be a replicant.

      --
      Say hello to my little sig.
    9. Re:I have already solved this! by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      I've got this odd hunch that the original solution for Fermat's last theorem is related to Pythagoras.

      Why is x^2+y^2=z^2?

      I mean, I know the geometric explanation - the area of a square of side Z for any right-angled triangle, where Z is the hypotenuse is the area of the sum of squares of the other sides.

      What I want to know is, fundamentally, why? I've got this feeling the geometric approach is actually a side effect of the way that orthogonal axes relate to one another.

      Same thing with expanding it to 3 dimensions; for some reason (and yes, I know the pythagorean derivation), the length of a line in 3D is still of the L^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2 form.

      Why do I care about this?

      I figure that a^n + b^n = c^n not holding for n > 2, where a b and c are integers is actually a direct result of whatever this link is. And part of the logic that Fermat was using is that hey, pythagoras holds.

      Of course, the trick is proving that you can only get perfect triangles when that relationship holds. No idea how you begin proving that - but I get the feeling that there's something fundamental hiding here.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    10. Re:I have already solved this! by Liquid+Len · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I'm a bit vague, here, but IIRC, it's been formally proven that there is no simple proof to the Fermat theorem... So maybe he did have a "simple" proof but it couldn't have been right.

    11. Re:I have already solved this! by weierstrass · · Score: 1

      There are about a million people including you who thought that because the equation of Fermat's last theorem looked simple, there was some simple reason why it was true. (Don't worry because this list includes a lot of good mathematicians, including maybe Fermat himself) Some of these people would try and turn the 'feeling' you expressed above into something that looked like a mathematical proof, and then send it to various mathematicians, university departments etc. In fact the department that was responsible for awarding the Wolfskerl had a rota among staff for people to go through these supposed proofs and write back pointing out the flaws. There were always flaws. Like the Four Colour Theorem, the simplicity of the question suggested that there might be a simple solution. Like the Four Colour Theorem, if you study some of the actual proof, and take in to account the fact that lots of serious mathematicians tried to find proofs before, it's not hard to be convinced that there isn't a much simpler proof.

      (The proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is something that a good final-year undergraduate in pure math should be able to learn a lot about, missing out lots of details though. But at least to a level to begin to understand what the mathematical machinery that was used relates to. A good starting place is "Algebraic Number Theory and Fermat's Last Theorem" by Ian Stewart and David Tall. If you only have good high school math or high school + 1 college algebra course, it will take a LOT of work and determination to get up to a level to start understanding this stuff, and probably a couple of other books before you're ready for this one. However there's no reason you wouldn't be able to do it if you have some curiosity and mathematical aptitude. Good Luck.)

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
    12. Re:I have already solved this! by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Which is why I've never tried sending out a proof... it's not baked yet - it's just a hunch.

      Although I still have yet to see anything that explains why the sum of the areas trick for pythagoras should work in a theoretical manner, that actually explains the underlying principles without resorting to a geometric argument. Which is kind of cheating - what I want to know is why the geometry works that way :)

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    13. Re:I have already solved this! by agbinfo · · Score: 1

      How can you prove that there's no simple proof? The fact that none has been found yet doesn't prove that one doesn't exist. The Fermat theorem has been proven to be true using a complex proof. That doesn't mean that a simple proof is not possible.

      Also, I don't think there's a mathematical definition of what's considered a simple proof. What's simple for some is complex for others.

  6. The Riemann Hypothesis, by Robert Ludlum by HiggsBison · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cue the creepy, hushed voice-over:

    In a University in Lower Saxony, a mathematician had formulated a remarkable conjecture. Its effects would be felt worldwide.

    The Riemann Hypothesis, by Robert Ludlum. Now in paperback.

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
    1. Re:The Riemann Hypothesis, by Robert Ludlum by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Dang, where are mod points when you need them?

      rj

  7. smile and nod by esocid · · Score: 4, Funny

    (just smile and nod, smile and nod. they'll never know you have no idea what this means)

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:smile and nod by piemcfly · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can vouch for the smile-nod method.

      I got through half a year of classes on game-theory in Korean with it. The professor never noticed I didn't speak a word Korean. Tests were in English, and the guy just kept asking ending in '...isn't that right, studentX?' or '...do you not agree, studentY?'.

      Smile and nod baby, smile and nod. Best followed by a short single chuckle, as if the intrinsical irony of reality does not elude you.

      By the end of the semester the guy actually seemed to like me.

    2. Re:smile and nod by l2718 · · Score: 1

      Actually, we can tell quite easily -- but sometime we get so excited we rudely keep trying to explain anyway. In any case, you are right that because it is so technical, this story doesn't belong on this forum.

    3. Re:smile and nod by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (just smile and nod, smile and nod. they'll never know you have no idea what this means)
      Agree. I'm the guy who submitted the article, and I have no idea what it's about.
      It just felt slashdotty.

    4. Re:smile and nod by popmaker · · Score: 1

      Hey, and have ONE thing that you look for to see if it's wrong. Constantly. Like dividing by zero. Odds are, it IS going to happen, as a mistake, at least once during a semester, and THAT is your moment to shine, baby! Even if you have NO idea what is going on, you DID notice that the lecturer tried to divide by zero - so raise your hand and gain instant respect by everyone in the room - which usually people which are themselves busy applying the smile and nod method, have no idea what's going on, but did notice that YOU found an error. And if he asks you about any detail, just say you aren't really sure but - that he's probably right - and put up an intense frown like you're thinking really hard. Odds are, he'll figure it out eventually, in which case you smile broadly and exclaim "exactly"!

      There's a plenty of ways of looking smart. :)

    5. Re:smile and nod by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

      Well, it's quite simply really. They've essentially discovered a previously unknown integer that comes between six and seven.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    6. Re:smile and nod by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      In the end, you're only fooling yourself. Better to learn the material for real than waste effort trying to fake it.

    7. Re:smile and nod by popmaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, indeed. But of course I was joking. Also: This way of "fooling myself" usually maeks me go home and read the book for real, just to know what the hell I was talking about. :)

      The "effort trying to fake it" somehow always ends up with me learning something...

    8. Re:smile and nod by weierstrass · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a lecturer try to divide by zero in 5+ years of math classes. There are a few errors that come up quite frequently, but lecturers usually know in advance what they're going to demonstrate on the board. Dividing by zero would mean that you had really gone wrong somewhere, and in fact the real error would probably be that you had put the wrong expression on the bottom of a fraction (one that happened to be equal to zero).

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
    9. Re:smile and nod by popmaker · · Score: 1

      Well, it could happen that the nominator was zero also and he just thought that it was enough for the whole expression to be zero and forgot to check the denominator. That could have been okay if it just so happened that the fraction had zero as a limit, not a value, in that point.

      This actually happened, and I turned out looking quite smart, even though I had no idea what the whole point of the calculation was. To be honest though, I went home and read it through afterwards.

    10. Re:smile and nod by weierstrass · · Score: 1

      i had a professor who didn't mind that you couldn't divide non-zero numbers by zero, but was quite annoyed that he wasn't allowed to divide zero by zero. i never asked him what he thought the value of 0/0 was supposed to be..

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
    11. Re:smile and nod by popmaker · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, he's probably the only one who knew the answer to that one! :)

  8. Re:wow... by invisiblerhino · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, the Riemann hypothesis is pretty important, given that a proof of it would tell us about the distribution of prime numbers, and prime numbers are the wheels which keep e-commerce turning (RSA anyone?) Also, concerning scientific results which sound like Robert Ludlum novels, my own personal favourite is the Born Approximation - the least popular in the Bourne series.

    --
    xterm -n 8
  9. Similar Sounding by Jubetas · · Score: 1

    Not to be confused with the Hymen Riepothesis.

  10. Nevermind. Thought it said "Rainman" by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1, Funny

    Uh oh... Uh oh fart.

    Did you fart, Ray? Did you fucking fart?

  11. What's really going on here by l2718 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Booker and Ce Bian constructed certain degree 3 L-functions, but it is best to think of their discovery as follows: there is a complicated 5-dimensional membrane known to mathematicians as "SL(3,Z)\SL(3,R)/SO(3)". This membrane has subtle number-theoretic symmetries, so that its modes of vibration encode number-theoretic information. These modes (and their vibrational frequencies) are being extensively studied, but they are very transcendental objects so they cannot be written down explicitely and must be computed numerically. While certain modes (and frequencies) were already known numerically (they can be constructed from vibrational modes of the 2-dimensional membrane "SL(2,Z)\SL(2,R)/SO(2)" via something known as the Gelbart-Jacuqet lift) we now have the the first numerical computation of "native" modes of the 5-dimensional membrane -- those that aren't related to lower-dimensional cases. To each such mode of vibration there is an associated "L-function (similar to the Riemann zeta function), and it is the L-functions that were constructed. In fact, verifying that the approximate L-functions that were found correspond to actual modes of vibration is not easy (in the 2-dimensional case there is important work of Booker with others about this).

    In short, this is an important advance in automorphic forms, but it is so technical that it doesn't belong on SlashDot.

    It is important to realize that while indeed there is a ("Generalized") Riemann Hypothesis associated to these L-functions, numerically computing them represents zero progress toward proving the Riemann hypothesis for these L-functions or the original Hypothesis for the Riemann zeta function. At most this will allow very approximately computing some of their zeros and thus a weak check on the GRH for these L-functions.

    1. Re:What's really going on here by kalirion · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow, it's so clear now!

    2. Re:What's really going on here by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2, Informative

      I sincerely tried to follow all that, but it's so far over my head that it's in orbit around Jupiter.

    3. Re:What's really going on here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a big deal? I was thinking about that last week and came up with the same stuff. I just figured everyone else already knew these things......

    4. Re:What's really going on here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think my brain just shat in my skull.

    5. Re:What's really going on here by felipekk · · Score: 1

      *smiles and nods*

    6. Re:What's really going on here by mapkinase · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Everybody have already noticed that most recent proofs of outstanding hardcore die hard theorems are mind-bogglingly long or simply numeric (it's not a proof, I know).

      Does it mean we are closing to the Goedel's incompleteness levels of the development of formal number theory?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:What's really going on here by Micaelis · · Score: 1

      I don't know if somebody asked this before:

      "Solving this problem will contribute to (find|build|formulate) what?"

      I know near zero of Mathmatics, so I'm curious about ( And Wikipedia is not helping, though... ).

    8. Re:What's really going on here by debrain · · Score: 1

      In short, this is an important advance in automorphic forms, but it is so technical that it doesn't belong on SlashDot. In my extremely limited experience, I have noticed that brilliance is often reflected by the ability to simply explain a complex idea. One of the interesting benefits of Slashdot is that often there is someone reading who either has seen a brilliant reduction of a complex problem to a simple explanation, or alternatively has sufficient experience in the area to reduce it to a simple concept. YMMV. :)
    9. Re:What's really going on here by l2718 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if somebody asked this before: "writing Hamlet contributed to find|build|formulate what?" ?

      Seriously, numerically computing "automorphic forms" (whatever they are) contributes to understanding these objects, for example for formulating conjectures about them and for testing known conjectures. This is good for analytic number theory, but at the moment has few applications outside mathematics. Doing mathematics is important because it is a triumph of human intellect, not because it has any practical application (or perhaps you also judge Shakespeare by the practical application of his writings?). In some cases, mathematics has applications to everyday life (modern cryptography is one). In some cases we have yet to find applications.

    10. Re:What's really going on here by clampolo · · Score: 1

      When dealing with problems like this, the value comes from just having a proof. This sounds a little weird, but the tools that are used to prove something are more valuable than the theorems in many cases. I'll list some examples of why this is the case.

      Cantor gave a famous proof that the real numbers were uncountable (in laymen's terms you can think of this as proving that the set of real numbers is much larger than the set of integers.) In order to do this, he invented a technique called "diagonalization." This method was used to produce much of modern logic and set theory: Godel used it for his famous Incompleteness Theorem. The Halting Problem relies on diagonalization as well.

      When Joseph Cohen solved the Continuum Hypothesis, he developed a technique called Forcing. This technique has made many difficult problems in Set Theory solvable.

      So in short, the hope is that a proof will provide new insights and new techniques that will open up many new doors.

    11. Re:What's really going on here by Kjella · · Score: 2

      "Math" could very well be considered its own language, and without understanding the words or the grammar explaining something becomes exceedingly hard. At any rate, I've found assumption to give 99% of the real-world value anyway:

      1. Riemann: I hypothesise that this is true.
      2. Computer: Looks good, but this isn't proof.
      3. Scientist: If I assume that the Riemann hypothesis is true, we can deduct X, Y, Z etc.
      4. ???
      5. Engineer: I've found a practical application for Z.
      6. Theoretician: Yes, but it's not proven to work that way.
      7. Real world: And gravity can stop tomorrow, STFU and produce it.

      Don't get me wrong I think having a proof is fine, but most of the time "the proof is in the pudding" is good enough.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:What's really going on here by bjorniac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Somewhat, but the parallel conjecture that went all the way back to Euclid couldn't be proven, even though it seemed largely true. Eventually Riemannian geometry arose as something that broke this well established conjecture. Often, yes, it's useful to assume conjectures, but don't underestimate the value of a proof, or even the value of failed proofs.

    13. Re:What's really going on here by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Nice explanation.

    14. Re:What's really going on here by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Gelbart-Jacuqet Gelbart-Jacquet?
      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    15. Re:What's really going on here by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 1
      Regrettably, I chose the road more traveled so have no idea what this means. Looked up "automorphic forms"... yeah, that didn't help.

      So, my question is: what does this MEAN? Are we closer to faster than light travel, anti-gravity hover-crafts, cold fusion, teleporters, a better burning light bulb, that 2+3 really does equal 5 (yeah, I least I got the prime number part), What?

    16. Re:What's really going on here by ediron2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In short, this is an important advance in automorphic forms, but it is so technical that it doesn't belong on SlashDot.

      You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. -- A. Einstein.

      Lucky for us, my grandma doesn't read slashdot. But in a long-ago life, I earned a minor degree in math and took much more math en route to a degree in physics (undergrad and grad... but nowhere near this Riemann space stuff). So, I am both curious and competent. And I regret to say you didn't do the best job explaining the topic.

      Rather than just bitch... here's where I wish you'd explain more:
      • give (my grandma) an analogy for a membrane,
      • What are subtle number-theoretic symmetries? Again, handwavy analogies (for me and my grandma) are fine.
      • Is there a linkage or relationship between modes and frequencies, akin to physics standing wave equations?
      • Any pictures you can link to that visualize these in 2-space or 3-space in a way that makes us get a hint of a grasp of 5-space?
      • Ditto for the symmetries of 2-dim membranes: pics, examples, analogies?
      • What's this something and why did Gelbart-Jacquet lift it?
      • What's a native mode?... oh, wait, you did this one: a native mode is one that doesn't look like it merely adds a dimension (of complexity?) by doing something minor to alter a 2d or 3d or 4d case. What exactly would that something be? Is an ok analogy taking a bessel function in 2 or 3d, then adding a 1-d unrelated critter in to the 4th dimension that doesn't add any value that affects the other 3?
      • So, once I have this 5-d rippling thing that isn't some lazy mashup of a 2d and a 3d or any other easy simplification, are we ready to take on 'to each such mode of vibration there is an associated L-function?
      • What's automorphic? Messes with itself, literally, but... ?
      • If it is numerically computed, WHY? Why can't it be solved symbolically? Is this like PDE's or n-body problems, where the problem isn't mathematically solvable but we can get close to the answer via discarding nth terms in series, perturbations, approximations, or the likes?
      • While I agree that numerical solutions aren't purely 'right' like symbolic proofs, one can use them to do disproofs: if one shows that the error is less than E(x), and that numerical plus error's limit won't ever reach some condition, or that E(x) diverges, or whatever... that's useful and may be a step toward proving the Riemann Hypothesis. Granted, any time a tech journalist (including the slashdot editors) writes a headline, the baby jesus stabs a scientist's voodoo-doll with a long needle...
      • And what the hell is GRH? General/global/great/ Riemann Hypothesis?

      Thanks. Deconstructing this, I now have a (probably WRONG) sense for what you tried to say:

      These guys did some computational/numerical work that doesn't really go THAT far to proving the Riemann Hypothesis. They found some 5-d examples that were really 5-d complex (not just stunts to extend 2d, 3d or 4d without the additional dimension of complexity), they did numerical work to find some 'native' 5d modes (insert a better definition of mode than 'a solution set that is like a stable solution or a standing wave or whatever'). So, we now have computationally-done 5d hints, but we're no closer to symbolically solving 5d equations. It's a bit of computational insight, but it isn't a pure proof.

      Um, how did I do?
    17. Re:What's really going on here by Barkmullz · · Score: 1

      ...but it is so technical that it doesn't belong on SlashDot.

      I am pretty sure this is a first.

      --
      Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
    18. Re:What's really going on here by Metasquares · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Quite the contrary, actually - I think we need more discussions (and more posts) like this on Slashdot. It's a good starting point to look things up.

      I already know a few things about L-functions and GRH, but I'm not sure what the "membranes" you refer to are. Are you speaking of the same "membranes" that appear in M-theory?

    19. Re:What's really going on here by x1n933k · · Score: 1

      ...we now have the the first numerical computation of "native" modes of the 5-dimensional membrane...

      Wait a minute, are you saying that Duke Nukem Forever is going to be in 5D?!

      [J]
    20. Re:What's really going on here by l2718 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Let's try:
      • The "membranes", "modes" and "frequencies" here are already a physical analogy. Number theorists study objects (``automorphic forms'' -- no matter why they are called this way) that live on some ``manifolds'' (no matter what that means, either). But to get some intuition you can replace ''manifold'' with ''taut membrane'' (like a drum) and ''automorphic form'' with ''normal mode'' a.k.a. basic ''standing wave'', as you call it. An important problem in mathematical physics is to find what are the possible frequencies of standing waves on a particular surface. The problem here is analogous.
      • To see a picture of the 2-dim membrane I was talking about, see here. Start by taking a half-infinite strip of width 1, and cut off a semi-circular bit at the bottom like in the picture (the strip extends infinitely far at the top. Next, glue the two infinite sides together so the strip becomes a cylinder. Finally (that's not in the picture) imagine that as you go further and further up the cylinder, its radius becomes smaller and smaller, so the real thing is a kind of infinite funnel.
      • To see what a standing wave on this membrane looks like, see here (this was computed numerically by Dennis Hejhal).
      • The "lift" that takes a standing wave on this space to a standing wave on the 5-dim space is really complicated (and is a very indirect construction). There just isn't a non-technical way to describe it.
      • However, we know what the "lift" does to the frequencies: if you start with a standing wave you found numerically, and approximately know its frequency, then you know there will be a lifted guy of a calculatable frequency on the 5-dim space. So the interesting problem is to find standing waves with frequencies which are different from the ones we already know about (because we have calculated a lot of standing waves on the 2-dim surface).
      • One symmetry this infinite funnel has is left-right reflection (it is apparent both in the picture of the strip and in the picture of the vibrational mode). The other symmetries are difficult to describe in a blog post. What's important is that the modes of vibration must respect the symmetries.
      • It is true that to each such ''standing wave'' (on the 2-dim surface, on the 5-dim space, and on others) there is an associated L-function. The Riemann Hypothesis for these L-function (the same formulation: all zeros are on the critical line) is called the "Generalized (or Grand) Riemann Hypothesis" or GRH.
      • It was possible to calculate a few zeros of the newly-found modes, and see that indeed they are where they are supposed to be. This gives some evidence for the GRH. Calculations like this can always falsify the GRH (by finding a zero off the line). However, these calculations don't represent any progress toward proving the GRH -- that was confusion on part of the person who submitted the story to slashdot.
      I hope this helps.
    21. Re:What's really going on here by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      So that you don't utterly throw anyone else off, it was *Paul* Cohen.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    22. Re:What's really going on here by onemorechip · · Score: 3, Informative

      Paul Cohen. It was Paul Cohen.

      And he didn't solve the continuum hypothesis. He showed that you cannot prove CH from the ZF axioms. Gödel had previously show that you cannot *disprove* CH from ZF (unless ZF is inconsistent). Together these results show that CH is independent of ZF.

      So CH is still an unresolved problem today. As far as anyone knows, either CH or its negation can be taken as a separate axiom of itself, which leaves it an open question.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    23. Re:What's really going on here by credd144az · · Score: 1

      And here I thought we already had the Flux Capacitor

    24. Re:What's really going on here by xactuary · · Score: 1
      In short, this is an important advance in automorphic forms, but it is so technical that it doesn't belong on SlashDot.

      I got your less technical automorphic form right here. Schwingin!!!!

      --
      Say hello to my little sig.
    25. Re:What's really going on here by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      I feel a disturbance in the Force, as if a million quantum-physicists on slashdot cried out in agreement and were suddenly silenced...

    26. Re:What's really going on here by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation. The linked article carried essentially no information.

      What sort of geometry should we see on the Galois side of these functions?

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    27. Re:What's really going on here by weierstrass · · Score: 1

      It is not an open question. It is a question to which it has been proved that the answer can be either yes or no. This is as good an answer (for mathematicians) as if it had been found to be yes or no, since noone need try and prove anything about it anymore. It is not unresolved, it is completely resolved.

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
    28. Re:What's really going on here by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      It's open in the sense that some set theorists are still investigating it.

      Case in point: One set theorist (Woodin) published a paper just a few years ago putting forth an argument based on "omega logic" (which I don't claim to understand) that C = Aleph-2 (and therefore CH is false), while a colleague of his (Foreman) countered with an argument based on "generalized large cardinals" (which I don't claim to understand) that CH is true. So no, it isn't resolved at all.

      The idea is to find a new axiom that is sufficiently compelling (i.e., more so than either CH or !CH), that could be added to the usual axioms, and that would settle the CH question one way or the other (unless the resulting set of axioms later proved to be inconsistent). Of course, "compelling" may seem to be a subjective standard, but the existing axioms are widely accepted because they are compelling.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
  12. Please STOP reading Science Daily! by killmofasta · · Score: 1, Informative

    Science Daily is NOT science, nor Daily.
    The Holy Roman Empire, is NOT holy, nor Roman.

    Is Slashdot a slash and a dot?

  13. Riemann zeta function on Wikipedia by RockMFR · · Score: 2, Funny

    The popular T.V. Show NUMB3RS had an episode ("Prime Suspect") in which criminals kidnapped a child and demanded as ransom a possible proof of the Riemann Hypothesis from a mathematician. The proof would be used to steal interest rates from an encrypted website.

    Fascinating!

    1. Re:Riemann zeta function on Wikipedia by Surt · · Score: 2, Funny

      That show is the best mathy/sciency show on television, mostly because they never, ever get the science wrong. Also, there's some good acting.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Riemann zeta function on Wikipedia by amorri09 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, how wrong are you.....I honestly think that Numb3rs is the most contrived POS on TV. First off, The acting ISN'T good. Second, The plots are always work back kind of solutions packed with the mathmatical equivelant to the techno-babel you see on most network Sci-fi tv shows (eg. Hey! I was just reading about this thing called the Riemann Zeta something, lets make it into an episode that most likely has NOTHING to do with the proof or application of the proof itself...). Third, the plots of the show are amazingly un realistic.....like applying pattern algorithims that take into account 200 varibales to figure out what house a kidnapper is hiding in... Come On! Sorry, maybe im biased, but that show does nothing except get under my skin

    3. Re:Riemann zeta function on Wikipedia by rhdaly · · Score: 1

      That was the sound of you missing a non-trivial zero.

      --
      0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall.
    4. Re:Riemann zeta function on Wikipedia by Surt · · Score: 1

      You may possibly have missed the sarcasm tags around my post.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:Riemann zeta function on Wikipedia by amorri09 · · Score: 1

      ahh I was gonan say that whatever network exec let that show get past the pilot deserves to ahve their asymptote kicked lol :)

    6. Re:Riemann zeta function on Wikipedia by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      Come On! Sorry, maybe im biased, but that show does nothing except get under my skin


      So why do you watch it?

      Seriously.
      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
    7. Re:Riemann zeta function on Wikipedia by Hatta · · Score: 1

      But the music is awesome. Charlie Clouser rules.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  14. Re:Proof of Hypnosis? by Darby · · Score: 1


    Ce Bian and Andrew Booker (and their computer) should at least win SOME prize and may need to practice their Sweedish.....


    They might win some prize, but certainly not one that would involve any Swedish.
    There is no Nobel prize for mathematics. The Fields medal is the closest equivalent.

  15. Just simplify it by doojsdad · · Score: 1

    There's always some way to simplify these problems. In the future they will have weeks of lecture on the solution and then at the end tell you that all you have to do is assume the inputs are periodic with no noise and then all you have to do is take the limit to infinity and it becomes a constant. Duh.

    1. Re:Just simplify it by berashith · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that if I understood this comment, it would make me laugh.

    2. Re:Just simplify it by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really mean anything. It's funnier when you don't know.

    3. Re:Just simplify it by chromatic · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're thinking of physicists, who can prove this hypothesis for all prime numbers which are perfectly spherical and exist in a perfect vacuum.

  16. where's ....... by zelik · · Score: 1

    Good Will Hunting when you need him? He'd have figured this out overnight.

  17. Do you know what you're talking about? by l2718 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, what the RH tells us about the distribution of prime numbers is be pretty useless regarding RSA. To get anywhere you need the Extended Riemann Hypothesis (covering Dirichlet L-functions) and even the full force of the "Generalized Riemann Hypothesis" (covering all automorphic L-functions) is not known to help with the really important problem here -- factoring.

    1. Re:Do you know what you're talking about? by invisiblerhino · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected - I had been given the opposite impression.

      --
      xterm -n 8
  18. Who really cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The odds of making money solving math problems are much worse than the odds of winning at a casino. Best to spend your time getting laid.

    1. Re:Who really cares? by TheCrazyMonkey · · Score: 1

      Best to spend your time getting laid.
      I'm not sure those odds are much better than for making money solving math problems in this crowd... this is slashdot remember
  19. Unproven since 1859??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    If they'd have left it alone in 1858 we wouldn't be having this trouble. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

  20. Re:Proof of Hypnosis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ce Bian and Andrew Booker (and their computer) should at least win SOME prize and may need to practice their Sweedish.....

    There is no Nobel Prize for mathematics. There is the Fields Medal, but it has nothing to do with Sweden.

  21. What we really want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did this actually bring Ce Bian any closer to finally getting laid?

    1. Re:What we really want to know by superwiz · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot -- things that matter too geeks. You must be looking for www.mtv.com -- things that matter to farm animals.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  22. Nothing to do with RH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting work on L-functions, but this has nothing to do with the Riemann Hypothesis.
    Doesn't belong on Slashdot at all.

  23. question by mapkinase · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Riemann zeta function is the "mother of all L-functions".

    zeta(s)=sum(n=1, inf)(1*n^-s)

    Dirichle L-function is defined as

    L(f, s)=sum(n=1, inf)(f(n)*n^-s)

    so when f(n)=1, Dirichle L-function becomes Riemann zeta function.

    L-function is just another representation (called Euler product) of Dirichle L-function.

    L(f, s)=prod(prime p=1, inf) P(p, s)

    where

    P(p,s)= 1 + f(p)p^-s + f(p^2)p^-2s + ...

    The Euler product I figured must work similar to the usual prime number decomposition: you got the sum of 1's and you got a product of primes.

    That is how far I got.

    Now what the heck are degrees of those L-functions?

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:question by jlowery · · Score: 1

      Now what the heck are degrees of those L-functions?

      Fahrenheit?

      --
      If you post it, they will read.
    2. Re:question by l2718 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now what the heck are degrees of those L-functions?

      This is where things get technical. The Riemann Zeta-function $\zeta(s) = \sum_n n^{-s}$ has the Euler product representation $\zeta(s) = \prod_p \left( 1 - p^{-s}\right)^{-1}$. Similarly, the Dirichlet L-functions $L(s;\chi) = \sum_n \chi(n)/(n^s)$ have the Euler product $\prod_p L_p(s;\chi)$ with $L_p(s;\chi) = 1/( 1 - \chi(p)/(p^s))$. In both cases, the factor at each prime $p$ takes the form $1 / ( 1 - a(p)/p^s )$, for some number $a(p)$ depending on $p$. We think of this factor as a the inverse of a polynomial of degree 1 in the variable $p^(-s)$ (the polynomial is $P(T) = 1 - aT$).

      Similarly, to GL(3) Hecke-Maass forms such as the ones computed by Booker and Ce Bian, there is an attached L-function $L(s;f)$ which can be represented as an Euler product, $\prod_p L_p(s;f)$. This time, however, the local factors $L_p(s;f)$ are the inverses of cubic polynomials, that is $1/L_p(s;f)$ takes the form $P(p^-s)$ where $P(T) = 1 - aT - bT^2 - cT^3$ for some coefficients $a,b,c$ depending on $p$ (and on $f$, of course). This is why we call it an L-function (or Euler product) of degree 3.

      Using the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, it is common to factor the polynomial $P(T)$, and write it in the form $\prod_{j=1}^{3} ( 1 - \alpha_j(p) T)$. Thus an Euler product of degree $d$ takes the form:

      \prod_p \prod_{j=1}^{d} 1/(1-\alpha_j(p) p^{-s})
    3. Re:question by brendank310 · · Score: 1

      is there some sort of browser plugin that will parse that formatting to make it easier to read?

    4. Re:question by l2718 · · Score: 1

      It seems there is one: TeX the world. Unfortunately, you'd need to replace the equation delimiter: they use [; ;] where I used $ $. The actual equations can remain the same.

    5. Re:question by MrSniffer · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "degree" is defined in this brief overview of the math, shown using conventional notation. http://www.aimath.org/news/gl3/technical.pdf An overview of this result can be found at this page http://www.aimath.org/news/gl3/

    6. Re:question by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      He used TeX formatting. Put that post through any TeX/LaTeX interpreter (like LyX) and you should get readable math formulae.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    7. Re:question by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Thanks

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  24. Do we really want this to happen? by 00_NOP · · Score: 1

    Of course, as a scientist I do. But won't it also slaughter internet based commerce?

  25. Am I the only one... by Powercube · · Score: 1

    Who read his name as Sybian?

    1. Re:Am I the only one... by amorri09 · · Score: 1

      Well jsut look at the insight riding a sybian can bring lol :P

  26. Re:wow... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A proof of the Riemann Hypothesis itself won't have any effect on the security of encryption (if it did, you could compromise the encryption by just assuming the hypothesis is true and your exploit would work in nearly all cases). The only concern is if the process of developing the proof leads to an insight about the nature of prime numbers that weakens encryption in some other manner, but this wouldn't be the result of the Riemann Hypothesis itself.

  27. Vibrating membranes? by colinbrash · · Score: 1

    What's all this about vibrating membranes? I thought this was supposed to be about math!

    1. Re:Vibrating membranes? by l2718 · · Score: 1

      For "modes of vibration of the membrane" read "joint eigenfunctions of the ring of invariant differential operators on the locally symmetric space". I hope you find that clearer.

    2. Re:Vibrating membranes? by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      I actually do. Never underestimate explaining things in different ways, especially when discussing specialized concepts to people that might be coming from different backgrounds within the same field :)

  28. You gamed a game theory class, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, I guess that gaming the class is a good way of passing game theory classes, because I did that, too.

    Except that I turned math problems into essay questions about how I had no earthly clue how to solve the actual problems all too often, but I said that I was sure I was supposed to use [techniques used in class] to get an answer that should be something like [results discussed in class] and got a lot of partial credit (well, enough to pass) for remembering theories I had serious trouble actually applying to those damn matrices :-)

    Then again, intuition can be useful in mathematics. In a previous linear algebra class, my professor put a question on the test that they had forgotten to have us study in class and I managed the only 100% score. For reasons I still don't understand, when asked for the dimension of a matrix (without yet knowing what that was), I correctly assumed it had something to do with the number of linearly independent equations in the matrix, reduced it and got the right answer (two). Everyone else just wrote down something like "4x4" because it was a 4x4 matrix...

    1. Re:You gamed a game theory class, too? by superwiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Umm... not to boost your ego too much, but if that seemed intuitive, you might consider reading ahead in your text books and looking at what else seems intuitive. If you manage to run your intuition through 3 var calculus, go for point set topology next. This "intuition" you speak of might be more of a gift than you realize. If you get through topology on your own, mention it to a professor who is known to be good at explaining things (those are usually the ones who actually understand and LIKE to explain things). He'll tell you what's next. You might have the ability to naturally translate between geometrical and symbolic view. Believe me, it's not common. And things you can learn to do with it are pretty cool.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    2. Re:You gamed a game theory class, too? by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, that's the rank rather than the dimensionality of the matrix (it is, however, the geometric dimensionality of the manifold in which it lies), but if the matrix is invertible (full-rank), they're the same thing.

      I'd agree with the other poster, actually - go for topology if you want to test the bounds of your intuition. I found it to be one of the most intuitive fields of higher mathematics I gained exposure to, despite the fact that I generally consider myself firmly in the symbolic camp.

  29. Those were the days by Bromskloss · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...before 1859, when cars were pulled by horses and the Riemann hypothesis was still not unproven. Those were they days, I tell you, those they were.

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    1. Re:Those were the days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Pluto was still a planet!

  30. I forgot to credit Marginal Revolutions blog by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 5, Informative

    Submitter here. Right after hitting submit, I realized I'd forgotten to link to marginal revolutions, an economics blog that pointed me to the story.
    http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/03/assorted-link-4.html
    http://www.marginalrevolution.com/

  31. You miss the point by oni · · Score: 4, Informative

    infiltrating hundreds of thousands of computers to work on the solution

    The solution isn't to be found through massive computing effort. They are looking for a proof, not a computation. They need creativity, not horsepower.

    1. Re:You miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The solution isn't to be found through massive computing effort. They are looking for a proof, not a computation. They need creativity, not horsepower. From the article:

      Booker commented that, "This work was made possible by a combination of theoretical advances and the power of modern computers." During his lecture, Bian reported that it took approximately 10,000 hours of computer time to produce his initial results.
    2. Re:You miss the point by oni · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      > theoretical advances

      That 10,000 hours of computer time will be available from a wristwatch in two or three years. The key ingredient here is theory, creativity, etc.

    3. Re:You miss the point by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      That 10,000 hours of computer time will be available from a wristwatch in two or three years.

      I, for one, welcome our new HP-01 overlords.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  32. Sage and L-functions by mhansen444 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This article is related to Sage ( http://www.sagemath.org/ ), a free open-source math project. The article is about a computation (not using Sage) of an L-function, a computation about that L-function (using Sage), and a major new NSF-funded initiative to compute large tables of modular forms and L-functions that William Stein (director of the Sage project) is co-directing, which will have a large impact on Sage development.

  33. Re:The Wrong Story For Slashdot Crowd by SlashWombat · · Score: 1

    Yes. Only in the US would there be an attempt to legislate that PI = 3.2

    Mind you ... the rest of the world isn't that much better either.

    By definition, 50% of the world's population has an IQ of less than 100.

  34. Obligatory lexx reference by kesuki · · Score: 1

    So how long till we can use this to calculate the exact mass of a higgs boson particle?

  35. Practical benefits? by master_p · · Score: 1

    I did not understand even one bit from the problem description, so I would like to approach this from another perspective: is there any practical benefits in proving the Riemann Hypothesis?

  36. Re:wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did it come before or after the Bourne Ultimatum?