Riemann's hypothesis is incorrect a proof

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Carl Fischbach

I am not really sure of myself with complex math but I thought I would give Riemann's hypothesis a shot

Full stop.

[jasonp]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

What is it about mathematics that people who are totally ignorant
(and who know they are ignorant) think they can magically solve
problems that have eluded PhD's for centuries??? We see this phenomenon
constantly on the Internet.

I've thought about this a lot, and I think it boils down to three things:

- complex questions have complex answers, so therefore simple questions must have simple answers

- mathematics is an edifice of pure thought-stuff, and not a 'trade' like neurosurgery, so the cost of entry is perceived as zero

- Fame is nice, and finding that simple answer will make me famous

Compare Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (available as a PDF from the relevant wikipedia page) to the average (attempt at an) algebraic proof. I've heard that the number of purported proofs of FLT actually increased after Wiles' result was published.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by jasonp

- Fame is nice, and finding that simple answer will make me famous

Yes. But getting a reputation as being a fool is not nice....

The most amazing thing to me is the hubris implied by someone even *trying*
to give a simple proof. What makes these people think that they can
find a simple answer that has eluded so many experts for so long???

[jasonp]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

The most amazing thing to me is the hubris implied by someone even *trying*
to give a simple proof. What makes these people think that they can
find a simple answer that has eluded so many experts for so long???

Distrust of authority is ordinarily healthy...though of course the burden is on you (always) to not be wrong

[xilman]

Originally Posted by jasonp

I've thought about this a lot, and I think it boils down to three things:

- complex questions have complex answers, so therefore simple questions must have simple answers

- mathematics is an edifice of pure thought-stuff, and not a 'trade' like neurosurgery, so the cost of entry is perceived as zero

- Fame is nice, and finding that simple answer will make me famous

Compare Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (available as a PDF from the relevant wikipedia page) to the average (attempt at an) algebraic proof. I've heard that the number of purported proofs of FLT actually increased after Wiles' result was published.

It was a rhetorical question. Bob's asked it many times in the past and has had several good answers. I refuse to believe that he's forgotten all of them and needs to ask again.

One of my responses is that almost everyone in the overdeveloped world has received an education in mathematics but hardly anyone has had any education in surgery. Therefore, people are more confident in the former than the latter.

(The counter-argument, which hardly anyone produces, so I'm revealing it as a public service, is that "medicine", not "surgery" is a closer match to "mathematics" and that almost everyone has some exposure to basic medicine as a recipient and as a practitioner.)

Paul

[jasonp]

Originally Posted by xilman

It was a rhetorical question. Bob's asked it many times in the past and has had several good answers. I refuse to believe that he's forgotten all of them and needs to ask again.

My answer was rhetorical too :)

[Visu]

Originally Posted by jasonp

I've thought about this a lot, and I think it boils down to three things:

- complex questions have complex answers, so therefore simple questions must have simple answers

- mathematics is an edifice of pure thought-stuff, and not a 'trade' like neurosurgery, so the cost of entry is perceived as zero

- Fame is nice, and finding that simple answer will make me famous

Compare Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (available as a PDF from the relevant wikipedia page) to the average (attempt at an) algebraic proof. I've heard that the number of purported proofs of FLT actually increased after Wiles' result was published.

Just curious, how many people on this forum actually understand Wiles' proof of FLT? (Especially those with a background in mathematics).

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Visu

Just curious, how many people on this forum actually understand Wiles' proof of FLT? (Especially those with a background in mathematics).

Completely? I doubt anyone does. I understand some of the pieces.

[Visu]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Completely? I doubt anyone does. I understand some of the pieces.

That probably explains the reason why people look for simpler proofs. I remember reading somewhere ( I think it was in Simon Singh's book on FLT) that only 5 people in the world understand Wiles' proof completely. I could find 5 ( or more) people who believe in UFO's , tooth fairies and the Loch Ness monster but that doesn't mean they exist.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that Wiles' proof is wrong.I'm just pointing out that a simpler proof is more accessible and more people will be convinced of its truth. That's why we have people still coming up with proofs to FLT but no one attempting to disprove Pythagoras' theorem.

[Orgasmic Troll]

Originally Posted by Visu

That probably explains the reason why people look for simpler proofs. I remember reading somewhere ( I think it was in Simon Singh's book on FLT) that only 5 people in the world understand Wiles' proof completely. I could find 5 ( or more) people who believe in UFO's , tooth fairies and the Loch Ness monster but that doesn't mean they exist.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that Wiles' proof is wrong.I'm just pointing out that a simpler proof is more accessible and more people will be convinced of its truth. That's why we have people still coming up with proofs to FLT but no one attempting to disprove Pythagoras' theorem.

Why are you pointing it out? That's completely obvious and doesn't discount the hubris of cranks who think that THEY can provide a simple proof of FLT despite the fact that the problem resisted for hundreds of years and only fell due to some VERY deep mathematics. It's downright insulting.

[Visu]

Originally Posted by jasonp

- mathematics is an edifice of pure thought-stuff, and not a 'trade' like neurosurgery, so the cost of entry is perceived as zero

You don't kill anyone doing mathematics unlike brain surgery so there is no liability in being a crank.(except being called on of course.)