Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Prominent Mathematicians Rebuke Recent Riemann Hypothesis Proof

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the here-is-your-peer-review dept.

Bryan writes "Xian-Jin Li's purported proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (reported on recently) has been rebuked by Fields Medalist Terence Tao. Fortunately, Dr. Li's proof fails alongside a respectable graveyard of previous attempts." Relatedly, jim.shilliday writes "The proof cites and appears to be based in part on the work of the leading French theorist Alain Connes. A few hours ago, Connes posted a comment on his blog stating that the purported proof is so badly flawed that he stopped reading it."

3 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Why "fortunately"? by fgaliegue · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the summary:

    Fortunately, Dr. Li's proof fails alongside a respectable graveyard of previous attempts

    Why? I'm probably missing something obvious, I'm not even a mathematician to start with, but...

    I mean, we (the world) do want to prove it right (or wrong) one day or another, don't we?

  2. What a shock... by porcupine8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My husband is a mathematician, and he gets emails weekly from crackpots claiming to have disproved the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem or having proven the Riemann hypothesis or whatever. You can submit anything to the ArXiv, this shouldn't have even been news in the first place until it was confirmed.

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    1. Re:What a shock... by njj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I work part-time for a couple of mathematics research journals and we do get the occasional crank submission. There's one guy who's been sending us, on average, a 'paper' every week or so for the past few years: typically a single, badly-written page of gibberish (we're talking Time Cube standard lunacy here) which is clearly not the work of someone who's ever seen a real mathematics paper. We've never responded to him, or even acknowledged any of his submissions (helpfully he prints his return address on the back of the envelope, so these days they go straight in the bin, unopened and unread) and yet he still keeps sending them in.

      The arXiv also tends to get its fair share of crank submissions, usually elementary attempted (but trivially broken) proofs of things like the Goldbach Conjecture, Fermat's Last Theorem and the like - I'm assuming that the really mad stuff is filtered out by the moderators.

      In contrast, at a quick glance to my nonspecialist eyes (I'm a knot theorist) Xian-Jin Li's preprint looks like a genuine (if flawed) attempt by a serious, qualified mathematician who specialises in the relevant area. Fair play to him for trying, though. I'm also not sure I'd characterise Terence Tao or Alain Connes' refutations as 'rebukes' - they looked more like dispassionate analyses of the paper's flaws to me, the sort of discussion you'd expect from the peer-refereeing process.