Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

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|cite|improve this question

closed as off-topic by 6005, apnorton, Thomas Andrews, Amitesh Datta, Asaf Karagila May 1 '14 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." – apnorton, Amitesh Datta
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

The conclusion is priceless – Yann Hamdaoui Apr 30 '14 at 16:42
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 '14 at 16:44
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. – Anton Schigur Apr 30 '14 at 16:45
What's inconceivable is the amount of time the author wasted, whether consciously or not. – EsX_Raptor Apr 30 '14 at 18:09
I sincerely hope the author is not living his life seriously believing that he proved the Riemann hypothesis and no one believed him. – marczellm Apr 30 '14 at 21:37
up vote 27 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|cite|improve this answer
Why the censorship?? "Horrible" just doesn't express the same thing. I think this should be rolled back. – 6005 May 1 '14 at 6:24
See this post: I think we as a site will be worse off if we censor swearing as a means of communication. – 6005 May 1 '14 at 6:25

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|cite|improve this answer

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