Announcement on the Riemann hypothesis
in [Math]
|
Prev: combinations of additive and multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #181; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: topology
From: H. Shinya on 20 Jun 2010 08:29 Dear Professors, I would like to make an announcement concerning the Riemann hypothesis. (I choose not to explain what it is.) In the arXiv, a paper titled An integral formula for 1/|zeta(s)| and the Riemann hypothesis is available to anyone with Internet. The ID for the paper is 0706.0357. (It is listed in the General Mathematics section of the arXiv.) As seen in the arXiv, I have made a lot of mistakes as an amateur. (Also, in the past, I made an announcement of the same topic through this group.) Therefore, some part of the present version may be ambiguous (or quite possibly be wrong), but I for one believe that all such parts are easily verified, especially if the reader's specialization is analytic number theory. The main claim of the paper is that I may have resolved the Riemann hypothesis. I hope that some kind of workshop on the paper may be started out through this thread. The purpose of opening a workshop is, of course, to make the result solidly established. With regards, H. Shinya
From: Axel Vogt on 20 Jun 2010 09:36 Which leaves the question why those are still being able to post there.
From: Tonico on 20 Jun 2010 22:41 On Jun 20, 3:29 pm, "H. Shinya" <shinya...(a)yahoo.co.jp> wrote: > Dear Professors, > > I would like to make an announcement concerning the Riemann > > hypothesis. > > (I choose not to explain what it is.) > > In the arXiv, a paper titled > > An integral formula for 1/|zeta(s)| and the Riemann hypothesis > > is available to anyone with Internet. The ID for the paper is > 0706.0357. > > (It is listed in the General Mathematics section of the arXiv.) > > As seen in the arXiv, I have made a lot of mistakes as > > an amateur. (Also, in the past, I made an announcement of the same > > topic through this group.) Therefore, some part of the present version > > may be ambiguous (or quite possibly be wrong), but I for one believe > that all > > such parts are easily verified, especially if the reader's > specialization is > > analytic number theory. > > The main claim of the paper is that I may have resolved the Riemann > > hypothesis. > > I hope that some kind of workshop on the paper may be started out > > through this thread. > > The purpose of opening a workshop is, of course, to make the result > > solidly established. > > With regards, > > H. Shinya Already in page 2, in the "proof" of theorem A, I spot a probable problem: you say that "...we assume that Gamma_x(t) is a rapidly decreasing function of t for each fixed x > 0. That is, Gamma_xx(t) as a function of t is a member of the so-called Schwartz space. The proof of this assumption is rather a cumbersome exercise, so we choose not to prove it here." Fine, prove it not there, but AT LEAST give a reference where we can find that! Tonio
From: H. Shinya on 21 Jun 2010 08:36 On Jun 21, 11:41 am, Tonico <Tonic...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 20, 3:29 pm, "H. Shinya" <shinya...(a)yahoo.co.jp> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Professors, > > > I would like to make an announcement concerning the Riemann > > > hypothesis. > > > (I choose not to explain what it is.) > > > In the arXiv, a paper titled > > > An integral formula for 1/|zeta(s)| and the Riemann hypothesis > > > is available to anyone with Internet. The ID for the paper is > > 0706.0357. > > > (It is listed in the General Mathematics section of the arXiv.) > > > As seen in the arXiv, I have made a lot of mistakes as > > > an amateur. (Also, in the past, I made an announcement of the same > > > topic through this group.) Therefore, some part of the present version > > > may be ambiguous (or quite possibly be wrong), but I for one believe > > that all > > > such parts are easily verified, especially if the reader's > > specialization is > > > analytic number theory. > > > The main claim of the paper is that I may have resolved the Riemann > > > hypothesis. > > > I hope that some kind of workshop on the paper may be started out > > > through this thread. > > > The purpose of opening a workshop is, of course, to make the result > > > solidly established. > > > With regards, > > > H. Shinya > > Already in page 2, in the "proof" of theorem A, I spot a probable > problem: you say that "...we assume that Gamma_x(t) is a rapidly > decreasing function of t for each fixed x > 0. That is, > Gamma_xx(t) as a function of t is a member of the so-called Schwartz > space. The proof of this assumption is rather a cumbersome exercise, > so we choose not to prove it here." > > Fine, prove it not there, but AT LEAST give a reference where we can > find that! > > Tonio- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Wow. It seems that I asked wrong guys at a wrong place. I just believe, however, that you guys surely could prove the fact that gamma_{x}(t) is in the Schwartz space. Besides, I did say, in the paper, that I assume that you have some basic knowledge on Fourier analysis. I have no intention to go into some conflict. So, please forget about the workshop matter. I wait for no more response on this thread. Sorry for any confusion. With regards, H. Shinya
From: Dan Cass on 21 Jun 2010 09:14
> On Jun 21, 11:41 am, Tonico <Tonic...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > On Jun 20, 3:29 pm, "H. Shinya" > <shinya...(a)yahoo.co.jp> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Professors, > > > > > I would like to make an announcement concerning > the Riemann > > > > > hypothesis. > > > > > (I choose not to explain what it is.) > > > > > In the arXiv, a paper titled > > > > > An integral formula for 1/|zeta(s)| and the > Riemann hypothesis > > > > > is available to anyone with Internet. The ID for > the paper is > > > 0706.0357. > > > > > (It is listed in the General Mathematics section > of the arXiv.) > > > > > As seen in the arXiv, I have made a lot of > mistakes as > > > > > an amateur. (Also, in the past, I made an > announcement of the same > > > > > topic through this group.) Therefore, some part > of the present version > > > > > may be ambiguous (or quite possibly be wrong), > but I for one believe > > > that all > > > > > such parts are easily verified, especially if the > reader's > > > specialization is > > > > > analytic number theory. > > > > > The main claim of the paper is that I may have > resolved the Riemann > > > > > hypothesis. > > > > > I hope that some kind of workshop on the paper > may be started out > > > > > through this thread. > > > > > The purpose of opening a workshop is, of course, > to make the result > > > > > solidly established. > > > > > With regards, > > > > > H. Shinya > > > > Already in page 2, in the "proof" of theorem A, I > spot a probable > > problem: you say that "...we assume that Gamma_x(t) > is a rapidly > > decreasing function of t for each fixed x > 0. That > is, > > Gamma_xx(t) as a function of t is a member of the > so-called Schwartz > > space. The proof of this assumption is rather a > cumbersome exercise, > > so we choose not to prove it here." > > > > Fine, prove it not there, but AT LEAST give a > reference where we can > > find that! > > > > Tonio- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Wow. > > It seems that I asked wrong guys at a wrong place. > > I just believe, however, that you guys surely could > > prove the fact that gamma_{x}(t) is in the Schwartz > space. > > Besides, I did say, in the paper, that I assume that > > you have some basic knowledge on Fourier analysis. > > > I have no intention to go into some conflict. > > So, please forget about the workshop matter. > > > I wait for no more response on this thread. > > > Sorry for any confusion. > > With regards, > > H. Shinya It seems odd to wait for something not to happen. Since this is a response on the thread, you'll have to wait longer... |