A cautionary note from Lubos Motl here.
Nice try but I am now 99% confident that Atiyah's proof of RH is wrong, hopeless...
...
! |
GENERAL MODNOTE Title edited for spelling. kiore. |
Michael Atiyah has a go...
Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
Nice try but I am now 99% confident that Atiyah's proof of RH is wrong, hopeless...
...
! |
GENERAL MODNOTE Title edited for spelling. kiore. |
There is a preprint of his paper out now and he gave his lecture a few minutes ago. Unfortunately, as many people feared, he does not have a proof. Its even worse in fact. The paper and his talk are evidence that he has lost quite a bit of mental faculty.
Most of the paper discusses "weakly analytic functions" which he defines in a way that seems meaningless. His definition automatically implies analyticity. It was also pointed out by someone else that his "proof" does not use any properties of ζ which means he seems to have proved that every analytic function has zeros only on the critical line.
Its quite sad that somebody allowed this event to happen. One hopes it does not tarnish his legacy.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest