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."

40 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
  2. 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: 2, Funny

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

  3. 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 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.

    3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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 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.

    3. 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...

  6. 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
  7. 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 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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?
    7. 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?

    8. 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.
    9. 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!
  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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!

  11. 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 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})
    2. 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/

  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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/

  15. 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. 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.

  17. 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.
  18. 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.