# This is a possible proof of the Riemann Hypothesis [closed]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6845 The above link claims to have solved the Riemann Hypothesis. It's not mine, of course. I just saw this on Tumblr and realized I needed bigger guns. This proof looks like Klingon to me so it could easily be a bunch of gibberish. I've googled and found nothing confirming this proof so I have a very healthy degree of skepticism about it's validity. BUT on the off chance it's true, I felt the need to submit it to people who might be able to tell.

-

## closed as off topic by Qiaochu Yuan, J. M., Andrés Caicedo, Zev Chonoles, AmzotiMay 30 '13 at 5:04

Questions on Mathematics Stack Exchange are expected to relate to math within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

No it's not. Wanna bet? (math.GM has lower submission standards than the rest of the arXiv, so it's usually where cranks go.) – Qiaochu Yuan May 30 '13 at 4:43
I can tell you that if I had a proof of the Riemann hypothesis, I'd put a little more effort into the typesetting. Page 5 is pretty bad. – alex.jordan May 30 '13 at 4:44
No Expert Here I just wonder about the claim in the article that The diﬃculty to prove this conjecture is related to the fact that ζ(s) has been formulated in a some cryptic way as complex continuation of hyperharmonic series and characterized by means of a functional equation that in a sense caches its properties about the identiﬁcations of zeros. And later he proves again the functional equation, along with some bizarre-looking identification with the quantum-zêta function. It seems that the entire theory is built upon this identification. Well, I might doubt its validity indeed. :D – awllower May 30 '13 at 4:45
Dear Nicholas, There is absolutely no argument here, just a bunch of trivialities, followed by nonsense at the end. Regards, – Matt E May 30 '13 at 4:59

Tragically, this proof is not correct. I'd like to point out a few things so that you can notice this, too:

1. Although on the arxiv, it's in the general mathematics section, which is the math section with the lowest quality.
2. Everything before his lemma 3.9 is trivial, like his non-trivial proof that $f(z) = 0 \iff |f(z)| = 0$.
3. Agostino has previously claimed to have proven almost every big-standing conjecture out there, including Twin Primes, the GRH, and Goldbach
4. I actually wrote a blog post on a previous claimed proof of his because of the amount of attention it was getting. Much of the criticism I wrote there applies to this paper as well.
-
I see. Shame about that, but thanks anyway. Sorry for wasting time. – Nicholas B. May 30 '13 at 5:01
It's strange - he was actually a real professor of mathematics, were did he go wrong? – nbubis May 30 '13 at 5:03
Never join the university he is teaching in – bgr95 Nov 16 '15 at 22:51

I suspect this paper is talking about nonsense, because the last page states "all the zeros of the $\overline{\zeta}$ function converges to two zeros only", etc. This statement does not make sense to me. It is really difficult to imagine someone can prove Riemann Hypothesis in 8-9 pages.

-
Its difficult to imagine anyone proving RH in any amount of pages ! :) – mick Jan 2 '14 at 23:13
If I could really imagine proving RH, I'd have a proof! – Jacob Wakem Jan 13 '14 at 7:01