A Spectral-Geometric Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis
zenodo.orgDon't get excited.
The author also claims to have proved the twin prime conjecture. https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/The_Twin_Prime_Conject...
They don't seem to be affiliated with any university and don't seem to collaborate with anyone except this one person, Andrew Elliot.
My assessment of the probability that this is a real proof: Less than 0.1%.
Other red (or at least yellow) flags:
1. Typeset in (what appears to be) Microsoft Word. Anyone under the age of 90 who knows enough math to prove the Riemann Hypothesis will have learned and strongly prefer LaTeX.
2. Casually introduces novel terminology like "entropy-spiral coordinate" without explanation, inconsistent with norms of mathematical exposition.
3. Social absurdities characteristic of crankery. Nobody with enough knowledge to prove the Riemann hypothesis thinks they need to put "rights holder" after their name in the proof.
Riemann, twin-primes and a united theory of physics in one year; busy couple. Amusing comment on the latter:
Comments: 335 Pages. (Note by viXra Admin: File size reduced by viXra Admin; please submit article written with AI assistance to ai.viXra.org)
https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Structured_Determinism...
Is there any real expert opinion on this? The abstract itself reads rather dense.
That said, if there's any field that "independent researchers" can excel, it should be math, it's not like you need an experimental group to crib off on.
Given the nature of the problem and the unsolicited mention of a "confinement manifold" earlier in the abstract, this summary gives very strong vibes of "My corral has six well closed gates, why do you keep asking about the fence?". This is in addition to not trusting complex and unclear proofs.> Each appendix isolates and resolves one of the classical obstacles to a self-contained Hilbert–Pólya formulation—self-adjointness, trace-class bounds, Paley–Wiener confinement, Weyl normalization, and uniqueness of the arithmetic weights.
They posted a previous paper on the same topic on vixra earlier this year.
Alright, while it's hard to judge this either way, why does this need to be flagged? This isn't really spam.
This is garbage maths. There are so many reflags on this, as pointed out by several people already.
For whatever reason they posted their paper on zenodo but it belongs to vixra, if they had posted it there you would have never heard of it.
I wonder how it could /not/ cite Terry Tao who has recent work on this.
I look forward, should this prove correct, to the explainers from Quanta, Numberphile, etc.
Is this at least coming from the direction that the experts expect?
Wrong question, an unreadable "proof" goes nowhere and comes from nowhere.
The painfully staggering density of undefined concepts, novel jargon and informal language in the paper obscures the difference between old ideas, possibly valid new ideas, and worthless AI slop and insanity.
Site seems to be hugged to death by HN.
zenodo isn't really a site that can be hugged to death, it's not a blog or something.
I'm pretty sure it's nonsense, but it does make me curious. What kind of mind goes down this path? They also produced a whole 300 page book. Is it like a massive genAI hallucination happening in a human brain?
If you dip into the book, it looks like something today's generation of "deep thinking" AI models might produce if demanded to create a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.