Talk:Riemann hypothesis/Archive 2

message: Please forgive my ignorance, since I am not really into mathematics (in fact only 13 years old), but don't all inputs less than or equal to 1 in the zeta function cause it to be equal to infinity? Ilyanep 14:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Divergence and meaning

message: An interesting looking article:  - Someone claims to have proven the Riemann Hypothesis. I picked this up off of /. - Xgkkp 23:25, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: De Branges (I)

message: I have cut out this one ("WhatPC?" Article Article on how proof of the Reimann hypothesis could destroy E-Commerce). I think it has no useful content.
Charles Matthews 19:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: just a minor point, from the book "music of the primes" the quote from hilbert
is waking up after "five hundred years" not a thousand. Searching on google seems to give conflicting answers though, anyone read the actual article ?.
Wombat 02:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
--This quoted from The Riemann Hypothesis, by Karl Sabbagh, Chapter 4, page 69, my edition "For Hilbert, the Riemann Hypothesis became the most important of all his problems, if we are to believe a story often told in mathematical circles: According to German legend, after the death of Barbarossa, the Emperor Frederick I, during a Crusade he was buried in a faraway grave. It was rumored that he was not dead but asleep, and would wake one day to save Germany from disaster, even after five hundred years. Hilbert was once asked, "If you were to revive, like Barbarossa, after five hundred years, what would you do?" He replied, "I would ask, 'Has somebody proved the Riemann Hypothesis?'"" And this citation: Bela Bollobas, foreword to Littlewood's Miscellany, Cambridge University Press, 1986, p. 16. 
Hope you can use this information - 
rob chamberlin 22:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  500 or 1000? 

message: I'm moving this off the page. Nothing recent or newsworthy, I think. Charles Matthews 12:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: De Branges rumour

message: In June 2004, Louis De Branges de Bourcia of Purdue University, the same mathematician who solved the Bieberbach conjecture, claimed to have proved the Riemann hypothesis in an "Apology for the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis"(pdf). His proof will soon be subjected to review by other mathematicians.  De Branges de Bourcia has announced a proof a number of times, but all of his previous attempts at this proof have failed.
The full purported proof is "Riemann Zeta functions" (pdf).
The proof's method has been tried before unsuccessfully. Linked is Conrey and Li's counterexample on the problems in the earlier version of his proof.
The example involves a numerical calculation. The authors also give a non-numerical counterexample, due to Peter Sarnak. On the other hand, De Branges's successful proof of the Bieberbach conjecture was also preceded by his failed proofs of it.
i actually have no clue about riemann hypo. but this might be (and may be not) usefull for you Math gurus -> How to Prove the Riemann Hypothesis
--82.102.204.79 19:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A possible proof of the Riemann hypothesis

message: The practical uses of the Riemann hypothesis include many equations that have been 'solved' in abstract mathematics with the assumption of the Riemann hypothesis.
Also, if there is a disproof of the Riemann hypothesis, it implies that the primes have a certain order to them. It would show if the error in the Prime number theorem is Random walk-like or not.
I removed this, which seemed vague and not well written; I'll stick a version
of the first sentence as an opener to the consequences section.
Gene Ward Smith 22:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Practical Uses of the Riemann hypothesis

message: Who if anyone calls RH that? Charles Matthews 16:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: typo/informal/ignorance. here:  - Zondor 22:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Riemann zeta hypothesis?

message: And what about DeBrange's proposed proof, has it been considered debunked or warranting more look into it or what? - Taxman Talk 19:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
:DeBrange is a real mathematician and his proofs are long and difficult.  I think errors were found, but he's probably still workig on it. 
:If you want proofs, theres a bunch of them, Matthew Watkins has a collection of them at proposed proofs page Many of these are actually interesting to read; Castro & Mahecha for example. And no such collection is complete without a proof from the illustrius Ludwig Plutonium who provides not one but two proofs! linas 00:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another proposed proof 

message: Yesterday I replaced three or four instances of  "1/2" by the HTML code ½, but I wonder if 0.5 would be better?  Bubba73 00:33, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't mind the "1/2" and I guess the ½ is OK, but please no 0.5.  linas 21:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  0.5? 

message: This paragraph is obviously a joke, but this really should be clarified. If it's not a well-known joke, it should be removed altogether:
:Number theorists as a rule have lived a long and productive life, thus it is said that the person who proves the Riemann hypothesis will actually become immortal. Others say that Riemann's hypothesis has been proved false several times already, and every time the unhappy mathematician was struck dead as soon as he had finished the proof.
Thanks. Deco 04:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify joke? 

message: This article currently gives top billing to Gourdon, making mention in the intro paragraphs, while completely ignoring dozens(?) of equivalent formulations. (e.g. the class conjectures from diophantine equations, or the Li criterion) Why? Surely the achievements of the numeric calculations are not so great as to merit this kind of prominence, is it? linas 04:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xavier Gourdon