Nigerian professor claims to have solved Riemann hypothesis

[Mini-Geek]

Remarkable claims are (rightly so, I'd say) met with much skepticism, because they require remarkable proof. A claim of a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis is going to be met with plenty of skepticism to begin with. It coming from (it sounds like) a relatively-unknown individual instead of a team (which is something, but hardly conclusive), and such individual coming from a country that's well known for "419 scammers" (the "hello i am a Nigerian prince send me money and I'll send you more money" email scams) instead of mathematicians is going to raise more skepticism (perhaps unfairly).

But hey, Fermat's Last Theorem was proven by something that smelled just as fishy at first glance according to things I've heard - and even had a hole that took some work to fix - so you can't discount it until people who can understand it have time to take a detailed look at the work. This is a frustratingly slow process to those of us used to instant news.

Some quick googling suggests that it's probably not proven.

[kladner]

comments from detractors had not dampened his sense of achievement.

Isn't this suggestive of something on the crackpot index? If all questions are perceived as detraction? I don't know if he rejects all skepticism as the work of hostile detractors, but as rendered in the article, he seemed rather strident.

I would be delighted if his work can be substantiated, though I have no clue about the maths in question. The depiction has whiff of,

"Those ignorant fools! They mock my brilliant work because they are malicious dullards! But I shall have the last laugh!

BwaaHaHaHaBwaaHaHaHaBwaaHaHaHaBwaaHaHaHaBwaaHaHaHaBwaaHaHaHa"

[Brian-E]

There are good grounds for skepticism whenever anyone claims such a far-reaching breakthrough which has been the subject of countless failed attempts over more than a century. Clearly no more notice should be paid to this claim until the professor has published his work in a paper and the international community has had time to scrutinize it. But please, let's not prejudge an entire country.

[axn]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Nice research, CNN

?

[Dubslow]

Perelman rejected the Millennium prize for reasons substantially different than "he had already won the Fields medal"

[axn]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Perelman rejected the Millennium prize for reasons substantially different than "he had already won the Fields medal"

I interpreted that as " However Perelman refused to accept the award, as he had (done with) the Fields Prize in 2006.". He had rejected Fields Medal as well.

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by axn

I interpreted that as " However Perelman refused to accept the award, as he had (done with) the Fields Prize in 2006.". He had rejected Fields Medal as well.

Apparently my reading comprehension skills need work (not sure if I read a word that isn't there or what)

[Batalov]

There was a rather crude-spirited Russian TV cartoon series called "Mult-Lichnosti" where Perelman-like character explains that he could not receive the million dollars because he would not break the Sabbath for that (this reminds of the Big Lebowski's running joke about Walter as well). He goes on to explain that those <<bad people>> figured out why he didn't come and now have all the prizes awarded specifically on Saturdays...

Found it (Ep.20, April 2011; at ~2:00 and a bit after):

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

There are good grounds for skepticism whenever anyone claims such a far-reaching breakthrough which has been the subject of countless failed attempts over more than a century. Clearly no more notice should be paid to this claim until the professor has published his work in a paper and the international community has had time to scrutinize it. But please, let's not prejudge an entire country.

I have seen the abstract. Even after making allowances for the fact that the author is not
a native English speaker, it is so poorly written as to be meaningless. Nor does the abstract
contain a hint that the paper claims a proof of RH.

Furthermore, If I truly had a proof (even a mistaken one), I would not submit it to a second or
third tier computer conference. I would submit instead to one of J. No. Theory, Crelle's Journal,
Acta Arithmetica, Annals, Bulletin of AMS, etc. i.e. a reputable journal.

And I would have it vetted by an expert colleague before submitting it.

From sci.math:


" Professor Enoch's findings were presented at International Conference on Mathematics and Computer Science
http://computer.conference-site.com/

The abstract is at
http://computer.conference-site.com/...icmcs_2015.pdf

According to CNN, "his findings are due for publication by a journal attached to the Vienna conference on December 1"
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/africa...esis-unsolved/ "



And if I had been the editor of the conference proceedings, I would have sent the paper
back immediately before I even submitted it to a referee. I would have told the author to
re-write the paper with the aid of someone who had better fluency in English, then to resubmit.

Was this conference refereed? I certainly would have semi-rejected the paper (as a referee) simply
on the basis of the very poorly written abstract. I have not seen the full paper, but have no
doubt that it is poorly written too. I would have said to rewrite then resubmit.