Hardy died it Hilbert lived it

[AntonioLao]

Proving the $1M Millennium Problem of Riemann Hypothesis has had two determined but failed solvers in a double H’s historical perspective namely: Hardy and Hilbert. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._H._Hardy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert.

As a devout atheist returning from visiting a mathematician friend in Denmark by boat across unusual violent North Sea and fearing the onset of a perfect storm, Hardy hastily wrote and mailed a postcard to a friend in England stating: “I have a proof for the Riemann Hypothesis!” He was full of confidence upon arriving safely that God would not let him die at sea with the false glory of being remembered as the person who proved it.

In 1900, at the second International Congress of Mathematicians held in Paris, Hilbert presented his famous 23 unsolved problems. However, a hundred years later, all but one of the genuine Hilbert Problems had been solved. This is the 8th on the list: Riemann Hypothesis. Hilbert believed that its proof will also clear up the mystery surrounding the twin primes. He was asked what would be his question to the world upon waking after a 500 years Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle coma. His reply is: “I would ask, ‘Has somebody proved the Riemann Hypothesis?’” It remains the greatest unsolved problem in mathematics.

[mkirkpatrick]

Has the R.H. been proved?If so what was the result! If not what are the implications if
it were?



regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

It has not been proved. In fact, the correct proof will be awarded a $1M sponsored by the Clay Mathematical Institute as one of the 7 Millennium Problems. I'm hoping my proof of Goldbach conjectures will indirectly give me some ideas as how to approach it using only real numbers instead of complex and imaginary numbers.

[MJA]

Dear Antonio,

Is it possible for you to explain simplistically what exactly the problem is.
Perhaps the solution is in the explaination.
I would like to help if I can.
Perhaps its as simple as TOE!

=
MJA

[AntonioLao]

Is it possible for you to explain simplistically what exactly the problem is.Perhaps the solution is in the explaination.

It has been proved that there are infinite number of prime numbers known as the fundamental theorem of arithmetic by Euclide in 350 BC. It has also been proved using logarithmic approximation the distribution of prime numbers known as the prime number theorem (PNT) by several mathematicians but the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) would give the exact proof of this prime distribution.

[MJA]

[quote=AntonioLao;63984]It has been proved that there are infinite number of prime numbers known as the fundamental theorem of arithmetic by Euclide in 350 BC. quote]

If there is proof as you say that prime numbers are infinite, I would first and primarily ask: how many prime numbers do we finitely know?
I then would suggest that the only things that we can be sure of and have proof of is what we know of, and nothing more including infinity or Euclides' fundamental theorem of arithmetic is proven or true.
Unless you rightfully argue that the universe is infinitely unknown too.
But to prove the universe is infinite, One would have to prove there is no finite end.
Back to square One!
Basing a problem on the infinite unknown be it numbers ot anything else perhaps is the flaw of the equation,
And can only lead One to more infinite unknown.
Zero times zero or anything and everything is still zero.

=
MJA

[AntonioLao]

how many prime numbers do we finitely know?

The supercomputers are working together to find the largest prime but the distribution is getting less and less dense. The largest known prime is a number with 3918990 digits found in March 26, 2007. See more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number

[MJA]

The supercomputers are working together to find the largest prime but the distribution is getting less and less dense. The largest known prime is a number with 3918990 digits found in March 26, 2007. See more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number

Then Euclide was wrong and prime numbers rather than being infinite are as you state finitely known.
Basing a problem on a false assumption or on nothing is no problem or nothing at all.
0 X problem = 0

=
MJA

[bottomlander]

Then Euclide was wrong and prime numbers rather than being infinite are as you state finitely known.

Then, as usual, everyone else is wrong!

Basing a problem on a false assumption or on nothing is no problem or nothing at all.

Actually, everyone else knows that the most obvious example of 'a false assumption' is your " = ".

0 X problem = 0

=
MJA

Why now, 0 is different to 1; X different to + ?
MJA, according to your confusing usage, why not 1 X problem = 0;
why not 0 + problem = 0; 0 X problem = 1; 0 X problem = 1 = anything;
or simply, why now you put something at both sides of = ? (Don't forget that your signature in every post is "nothing at both sides of = ".)


Bottomlander

[MJA]

Then, as usual, everyone else is wrong!

Bottomlander

Not everyone Bottomlander, but surely you!

=
MJA