The Riemann Hypothesis is false · HackerPapers discussions

The Riemann Hypothesis is false — mentioned by Quant10

Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:38:58 GMT

I wouldn't know. But from the author's arXiv statement [1] that ..though all of my previous (dis)proofs were flawed, i think the flaws pointed me towards the right direction..." it seems they are quite confident in the current version. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Riemann Hypothesis is false — mentioned by Quant10

Mon, 15 Aug 2022 05:48:39 GMT

This was a review of the author's earlier paper of 2018, in which they were actually claiming a proof of the RH. On their arXiv page: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546, the author states that "though all my previous proposed (dis)proofs were flawed, i think the flaws pointed me towards the right direction..."

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Riemann Hypothesis is false — mentioned by Quant10

Mon, 15 Aug 2022 05:45:05 GMT

This was a review of the author's earlier paper of 2018, in which they were actually claiming a proof of RH. On their arXiv page: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546, the author states that "though all my previous proposed (dis)proofs were flawed, i think the flaws pointed me towards the right direction."

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Riemann Hypothesis is false — mentioned by oblvious-earth

Sun, 14 Aug 2022 23:01:10 GMT

This is actually the 19th version of the paper the author has published in just over 2 years: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546 Being such a short paper if people in this field thought it was close to actually disproving the Riemann Hypothesis likely another mathematician could takes the proofs concept, fix it, publish it, and have it peer reviewed to snipe the claim of disproving the Riemann Hypothesis.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Riemann Hypothesis is false — mentioned by mjreacher

Sun, 14 Aug 2022 21:59:11 GMT

No and this post will hopefully be flagged soon. A quick Google search of the author would also show that they have published several similar proofs before [0] which were also wrong. [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12546

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.