Slashdot Mirror
Prominent Mathematicians Rebuke Recent Riemann Hypothesis Proof
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."
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?
The "proof" is that of Theorem 7.3 page 29 in Li's paper, but I stopped reading it when I saw that he is extending the test function h from ideles to adeles by 0 outside ideles and then using Fourier transform (see page 31). This cannot work and ideles form a set of measure 0 inside adeles (unlike what happens when one only deals with finitely many places).
Well duh this is what we have been saying - this is a preprint and is likely to have errors. Whether or not they can be repaired is open to question.
Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem took a long time to go through the review and repair process. And there was at least one pretty hard problem that had to be fixed.
Slashdot's "journalistic" process really suxors when it comes to this sort of stuff.
Oh come on, you were almost there! How about:
"Renowned Researchers Rebuke Recent Riemann Reasoning"
The submitter used stronger language to describe the comment than the comment itself. Connes just said "The 'proof' is that of Theorem 7.3 page 29 in Li's paper, but I stopped reading it when I saw that he is extending the test function h from ideles to adeles by 0 outside ideles and then using Fourier transform (see page 31). This cannot work... "
Yes, why don't you tell the Fields medalist how to make himself look good? I'm sure he needs your help desperately. Jeebus, you know that a Fields medal is objectively harder to get than a damned Nobel prize, right?
He did critique the 'proof' objectively. The claim was that by looking at the function on a certain domain ("ideles" whatever those are), one could look out from there and see how it would have to behave elsewhere ("adeles"). However, the "ideles" aren't big enough to give a good viewpoint of what's going on (i.e. the function at the ideles is not necessarily representative of the rest of the function). If you only look at multiples of 2pi, you could "prove" that sin(x)==0. Just because you or I couldn't notice the obvious problem in the RH proof, doesn't mean that it doesn't merit quick dismissal. Sometimes obvious mistakes are made in math (some would say that only obvious mistakes are made - but they are only obvious once they are pointed out).
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
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.
The proof was a legitimate effort by a non-crackpot, but the ideas in it were well known to specialists in the field and were generally understood to not be powerful enough to crack the problem. So the errors were found fairly quickly. Scott Aaronson's post Ten Signs that a claimed mathematical breakthrough is wrong item #10 may be helpful in understanding what happened.