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.

https://www.academia.edu/6829966/Proof_the_Riemann_Hypothesis_Cite_This_Article

The above paper claims to prove the Riemann Hypothesis, but seems somewhat suspect in its length, broken English, and the fact that it was published in an Applied Maths journal.

I don't have the background knowledge of Riemann's hypothesis, and so I am having trouble reasoning through the paper, so I thought I'd ask here.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Goos, anorton, Thomas Andrews, Amitesh Datta, Asaf Karagila May 1 at 8:01

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question is not about mathematics, within the scope defined in the help center." – anorton, Amitesh Datta
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

4  
The conclusion is priceless –  Yann Hamdaoui Apr 30 at 16:42
19  
The references are priceless too. There are four in total: one is a link to the Russian Wikipedia page on "Numbers", another one is a link to a page with the first 50 million prime numbers, and the last two are papers written by the author. –  Jonas Apr 30 at 16:44
4  
Even assuming that the bogus claim could be true, all that the author has done is statistical analysis (at least, that's what I gather from a preliminary look). That would be heuristics at best, and not even close to a proof. –  Jobin Idiculla Apr 30 at 16:45
3  
What's inconceivable is the amount of time the author wasted, whether consciously or not. –  Josué Molina Apr 30 at 18:09
3  
I wouldn't be surprised if the paper was computer-generated, just like those here. –  Bill Dubuque May 1 at 0:25
show 12 more comments

2 Answers 2

up vote 25 down vote accepted

This isn't just an Applied Math journal, this is one of many horrible open access journals recently created (typically in India) to turn a profit for the owners from page fees. The quality is extremely poor, and the review process nonexistent or trivial.

This particular journal is a year old, and is not indexed in any proper indices (mathscinet or zentralblatt). If you contacted the members of the editorial board you would likely find that many of them did not give permission to be listed.

share|improve this answer
3  
Why the censorship?? "Horrible" just doesn't express the same thing. I think this should be rolled back. –  Goos May 1 at 6:24
4  
See this post: I think we as a site will be worse off if we censor swearing as a means of communication. –  Goos May 1 at 6:25
add comment

There is no way that a paper of that magnitude could have language so clumsy. It's not just a matter of english-as-a-second-language, they say a lot of things that are just trivial or out-of-context. Trust me, if someone actually proves the Riemann hypothesis for real it will be all over the math news world with everybody buzzing about it.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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