Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Works done: After fruitlessly poring over books on zeta functions, it seems Freeman Dyson's sotto voce nudge to classify generalized one-dimensional quasicrystals is a way to go. As he writes:

enter image description here

Question: Will this be a worthwhile strategy to pursue where a big picture akin to Atiyah-Singer index theorem needs to be made for symmetry?

share|improve this question
    
I don't think you'll find an answer for this here or in MO. –  lhf Jun 10 '12 at 18:52
3  
Is this a serious question about the relative merits of this qausicrystal approach to RH, or did you get taken in by this joke exercise thinking it was meant for-real? (Either way, I'm not downvoting: if the former, a satisfactory answer may very well be possible by some expert; if the latter, I don't see the point of adding downvote to injury.) –  anon Jun 10 '12 at 18:56
1  
@anon I did not know this was a "joke exercise". Can you provide more details? –  Sniper Clown Jun 10 '12 at 18:57
3  
If you would do a simple google search for the Riemann Hypothesis, you would find out that it is one of the most famous open problems in all of mathematics. Hence the humor in asking a reader to prove it as a mere exercise. Your question will in all likelihood be closed unless you want to change the nature of it. | Edit: apparently you already knew this. How could you not tell this was a joke? | Edit 2: Alright, now IMO it is not close-worthy. –  anon Jun 10 '12 at 19:02
    
I edited the title. –  Sniper Clown Jun 10 '12 at 19:06

1 Answer 1

up vote 9 down vote accepted

The proof of the pudding is in the eating -- if following the program leads to a proof of RH, then ipso facto it is a worthwhile strategy. If it doesn't lead to the RH but does leads to other interesting things, it can reasonably be said to be worthwhile anyway. If it leads nowhere, then it wasn't worthwhile.

Which of those are the case nobody can say until it's actually been tried.

What kind of answer were you expecting? Anyone who can answer either of

  • Yes, this will lead to a proof of RH.
  • No, there cannot exist any proof of RH that uses these ideas even as an informal source of intuition; it's certain to be useless.

should be out there winning an Abel prize for themselves, not doodling about on MSE.

share|improve this answer
2  
doodle, doodle, doodle... (+1) –  robjohn Jun 11 '12 at 1:30
    
(+1) from me too! –  Eugene Jun 11 '12 at 1:33

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.