Where is the usual sensationalism? (Riemann Hypothesis)

[nomadreid]

That there is yet another mathematician (Dr Kumar Eswaran, Hyderabad) claiming to have solved the Riemann Hypothesis is not surprising.

That the institute for which he works for (SNIST) is satisfied that the proof is correct is also not surprising.

The eyebrows started to lightly ascend upon reading that a committee of 1200 mathematicians concluded, after a year of review, that the proof was correct, but since the articles don't say who composed the committee, the eyebrows didn't stay up long.

What did surprise me is that a claim like this, false or true, is usually picked up by the more sensationalist press in Europe and in the US (that even the tabloids find the RH newsworthy was shown by their coverage three years ago of Michael Atiyah's attempt). It has been a couple of days after a lot of major Indian papers announced the story , which is plenty of time for it to spread, but it hasn't. I don't expect the Clay Institute or the BBC to jump to any conclusions, but where are the usual stories of "breakthrough" etc.?

 

[fresh_42]

The eyebrows started to lightly ascend upon reading that a committee of 1200 mathematicians concluded, after a year of review, that the proof was correct.

##1,200## is ridiculous. Where did they find so many who were committed to waste their time?

 

[nomadreid]

Where did they find so many who were committed to waste their time?

The population of India is almost 1.4 billion (or thousand million, for the British readers). They have over a thousand universities...

 

[fresh_42]

The population of India is almost 1.4 billion (or thousand million, for the British readers). They have over a thousand universities...

Have fun with the address list ...

Anyway, the argument is more than weak because it tries to substitute quality by quantity. That's not really how mathematics works. Maybe they were medical professionals.

 

[nomadreid]

Right... as xkcd remarked: did you know that you can just buy lab coats?

That's not really how mathematics works.

Anyway, you know, and I know, that quantity doesn't replace quality (a million flies can't be wrong), but the tabloids and their readers don't. So my original question stands -- why wasn't this picked up on outside of India?

 

[Vanadium 50]

did you know that you can just buy lab coats?

You know, I have never worn a lab coat. Either street clothes or the full bunny suit.

why wasn't this picked up on outside of India?

Hard to explain to the general populace and it smells fishy.

 

[fresh_42]

why wasn't this picked up on outside of India?

Well, it makes a difference whether Atiyah claimed something or I did. I remember a Russian physicist or mathematician who claimed he had proven RH by physical means. He showed up on PF, but not in the media. And I have checked my usual suspect magazine when I saw this thread, and they didn't mention it either.

Looks as if even pop-science magazines distinguish between scientists with a reputation or no-names.

 

[nomadreid]

Hard to explain to the general populace and it smells fishy.

Ah, it's hard to explain correctly to the general public. But since when did that stop the popular press from making a hash of a scientific or mathematical result?

It smells fishy to any mathematician or scientist, but if you compare it to the sort of thing that the general public accepts (and not only in pop mathematics and science!), this is tame.

Looks as if even pop-science magazines distinguish between scientists with a reputation or no-names.

That sounds like a reasonable explanation.

I thank all those who replied, and thank the mentors for letting me pose a question that is pushing on the limits of the General Guidelines (which I think Vanadium 50 was hinting at when he included a link to those guidelines).

 

[pbuk]

##1,200## is ridiculous. Where did they find so many who were committed to waste their time?

They didn't. According to the Times of India they asked 1,200 and got 7. Including 'Professor M Seetharaman, formerly with the department of theoretical physics at University of Madras' whose credentials in analytic number theory are not stated.

The paper, grandly titled 'The Final and Exhaustive Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis from First Principles' can be downloaded from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325035649_The_Final_and_Exhaustive_Proof_of_the_Riemann_Hypothesis_from_First_Principles. On a first reading of the introduction the proof appears to go something like this:

• The distribution of prime numbers looks pretty random - it reminds me (the author) of a random walk.
• Using assumptions including independence I can prove some things about a random walk.
• I will ignore the fact that the distribution of prime numbers is clearly not independent and assume that similar things must be true for this.

 

[nomadreid]

They didn't.

Oops. My deepest apologies for reading that wrong.

Thanks very much, pbuk, for checking this out further. Your results extend my understanding of why this was not picked up outside of India (and heightens my surprise a bit that some of respectable Indian papers did bother with it).

 

[fresh_42]

That sounds like what the Russian guy tried to do. But how can probability considerations lead to a rigor statement with an all quantifier?