Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Indian Mathematician Takes Shot At Proving Riemann Hypothesis

Posted by timothy on from the stay-tuned-for-dyson-interview dept.

First time accepted submitter jalfreize writes "Indian Mathematician Rohit Gupta (known by the moniker @fadesingh on twitter) has announced an online workshop which he intends to 'conclude by attacking an important problem in front of (the participants), in public view.' The problem is the Riemann Hypothesis, first proposed in 1859. Rohit outlines his approach based on quasicrystals first outlined by Freeman Dyson. His audacious plan, coupled with this recent news about quasicrystals, has kicked up a storm of interest in the Indian twitterverse."

10 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Oh boy by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Looks like someone is trying to curry favor with the mods.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  2. Curry has little to do with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    He will talk about quasicrystals and the Riemann hypothesis, not lambda calculus.

  3. Better Summary by lacoronus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Riemann Hypothesis Takes Shot At Crushing Indian Mathematician

    The Riemann Hypothesis (known by the moniker @unsolvable on twitter) has announced an online workshop which it intends to 'conclude by attacking an important mathematician in front of (the participants), in public view.' The mathematician is the Rohit Gupta. The hypothesis outlines its approach based on previous failed attempts, conserved in quasicrystals of the tears of previously broken mathematicians. Its audacious plan, coupled with this recent news about quasicrystals, has kicked up a storm of interest in the Indian twitterverse.

  4. Re:Oh boy by blair1q · · Score: 4, Funny

    And the mods would like to have a little chaat with him.

  5. In other news, P=NP by blackcoot · · Score: 4, Funny

    I got bored this afternoon and did the proof a few different ways. Unfortunately, the details won't fit in this comment box.

    1. Re:In other news, P=NP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let us assume that P=0
      P(P-1) = 0
      P-1 = 0
      P = 1
      Hence by contradiction, P = 0 must be false.
      You're wrong. QED

      :-P

  6. Re:He had help: by m.ducharme · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why, he cited his sources, didn't he?

    --
    Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  7. Re:Oh boy by Adambomb · · Score: 3, Funny

    We won't be having naan of this around here!

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
  8. Re:What this means and how seriously is this by Aardpig · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yeah, well -- y'know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  9. Re:Indians by vilms · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oi! I'm Scottish and I resent the implication that we didn't invent it.

    Surely DEEP-FRIED MARS BAR tikka masala?