-1
$\begingroup$

I have received now message from so@one-zero.eu include paper show that the Auther proved the Riemann hypothesis as shown here in this paperwhich include both relation between the distribution of the primes and also ABC conjecture proof in this paper ., My question here is : Is this a spam mail or really both RH and ABC conjecture has been proved ?

The received message : Dear Fellows,

my investigation on the Riemann Hypothesis is definitely complete. You can read the related article mentioned above here

http://www.one-zero.eu/resources/Quad.pdf

Also, you can find a new set of primes which depends on the last digit of the prime numbers (1,3,7,9). Then, you can jump from prime to prime, like a tree. I have discovered the relation between the distribution of the primes and they last digit when I was 12 years old.

For the music of primes see here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgedQS9fp4E

For the abc-conjecture proof please see here:

http://www.one-zero.eu/resources/z-abc.pdf

Best Regards and my best wishes for 2018.

Thierno M. SOW

www.one-zero.eu

https://t.me/Thierno_M_Sow

http://mathoverflow.net/users/62386/thierno-m-sow

https://www.facebook.com/suly.dof

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Alex Wertheim, The Phenotype, dxiv, Aloizio Macedo, user99914 Jan 27 '18 at 0:55

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." – Alex Wertheim, The Phenotype, dxiv, Aloizio Macedo, Community
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I read the word "spam" and I'm quite vary of following any links related. Are the papers published in peer reviewed journals? Could you provide a reference instead of the links? $\endgroup$ – Yuriy S Jan 26 '18 at 23:37
  • $\begingroup$ Try to check the montioned paper, i said spam message because we are talking about a hard problem in mathematics, i have checked the two papers , but i don't know if these papers are published in any refereed journal $\endgroup$ – zeraoulia rafik Jan 26 '18 at 23:39
  • $\begingroup$ I have received now message from ... Did you ask for it, or were you otherwise affiliated with that site or address? Otherwise it's spam by definition. $\endgroup$ – dxiv Jan 26 '18 at 23:40
  • $\begingroup$ I add the form of message in my question to be clear at all $\endgroup$ – zeraoulia rafik Jan 26 '18 at 23:41
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ First impression: "discovered... when I was 12 years old" definitely reminds me of this from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person) : "stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error." $\endgroup$ – Daniel Schepler Jan 26 '18 at 23:59
3
$\begingroup$

The "proof" presented in the pdf is the following statement: $$ \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{p^{s}-1}=\zeta(s) $$ Where $s \in \mathbb{C}$ and $p$ prime. This already contains a mistake (a typo) and makes no sense as is. The author meant $$\prod^\infty_{k=1}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{p^{s}_k-1}\right)=\zeta(s)$$ As it is stated on his mathoverflow profile. This "corrected" statement does not prove the hypothesis and it is also false. (for example for positive $s$, the factors don't converge to $1$ but to $1/2$, so the infinite product must be $0$)

$\endgroup$

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