Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 40 of 40
Do you have anything specifically about MathOverflow that you want to say? This site is mainly for discussing MathOverflow.
I agree with Andres
Calling it spam seems a bit harsh. It should be noted this thread was created before the contribution in the other thread of which OP was likely unaware for context [Added: meanwhile not generally visible anymore, as deleted via flags.]
But I agree this posting is not sufficiently MO related. Though it might be a misunderstanding of some advice I gave RH on main. (Not sure the advice was so good in the first place, but RH is experiencing some difficulty with various of their contributions on MO, so I thought to tell them to ask on meta about it, as opposed to me in the comments of a closed question would be a good idea.)
Dear zeraoulia: I do not understand why you sent me an email asking me to check your preprint about the Riemann Hypothesis. If you check my web page, you will see quite clearly that I have never done any work on zeta functions or the distribution of primes. In particular, it is unlikely that I could verify a correct proof of RH without investing months of time learning the necessary background. Do you think it is reasonable to expect me to set aside the research I am currently doing for such a long time?
If people like me are counted among your 800, you should not be surprised that you are getting few replies. Is your time so precious that you can't be bothered to find out if you are emailing a person in the correct field?
To bring us back on topic, I am fairly certain that the general consensus of the community is the following:
I see that you have already asked more than 20 questions that were not appropriate. Please refrain from doing so again. If you are not sure about what is acceptable, please re-read the FAQ.
Um, excuse me for interrupting, but why is this discussion being held on meta? I thought meta was for discussions about the operation of MathOverflow, not about mathematics.
In my opinion, it sets a bad precedent: that purported solutions to RH and discussion thereof are now welcomed on meta. But I am happy to have this be my last comment on the matter, and let the moderators decide.
I agree with Gil that it is a nice thing Fedja is doing, but I'm also a little worried about creating the appearance that if you want mathematicians to evaluate an unconventional proof of a famous conjecture, you can do this by asking on meta.MO (or that this is a particularly interesting or promising approach to RH).
I don't want to get caught up in a long discussion of the proof myself, but it has fundamental issues even aside from what Fedja and Zeraoulia are currently discussing. For example, page 9 of the current version makes no sense to me, even taking for granted the earlier assertions about characterizing roots of eta on the critical line. The first half of page 9 describes a trivial equivalence relation on points with theta not equal to an integral multiple of 2\pi (it simply defines them all to be equivalent). Then the paper exhibits one root of eta with theta not a multiple of 2\pi and concludes using the equivalence relation that all the roots of eta have this property. This is an elaboration on page 7 of the previous version, which simply made the same assertion without the equivalence relation explanation, but it's not a proof. My conclusion is that this paper does not give a proof of the Riemann hypothesis, and I can't imagine any way of correcting it.
I agree with Todd Trimble's sentiments.
(Separately: I feel that the issues arising from this discussion show that all the previous MO questions about fancy gadgets in number theory were a complete waste of time, and that MO questions should not be judged quickly based on their vocabulary. "O Americano, Outra Vez!" to quote from a celebrated raconteur.)
1 to 40 of 40