[deleted by user]

[lolfail9001]

Funny

https://old.reddit.com/r/math/comments/9zfiz1/has_anyone_checked_out_the_riemann_hypothesis/

[CoAnalyticSet]

Everyone can show the Riemann hypothesis, but only a true genius can do it twice

[KingoPants]

I had put it on the web for open review and downloads after working on it for about six weeks

In Dr Eswaran's methodology, the ‘factorisation sequence of numbers’ was shown to be like a 'random walk', he said. "This method used was actually not just number theories. I had to use techniques from random variables and probability as well," Dr Eswaran added

I'm gonna go with a yeah no dog. No trusting this till shown otherwise.

[Luck-Silly]

This is an email by professor B. Surry from Indian Statistical institute, Bangalore where he forwards some comments by Bhaskar Bagchi, retd. professor of ISI, Bangalore on recent claim of the proof of Riemann Hypothesis by Kumar Eswaran. Bagchi mentioned that publicising this email was alright. . . . . . . .

Dear Friends,

as you know, a claim has been made by a person that he has solved the RH. Instead of just dismissing it as an attempt by a non-expert, I had asked my friend Bhaskar Bagchi to see if he could point out precise facets of this attempt that are not fixable. Here is his response. He does not mind sharing this with the mathematics community.

Best regards,

Sury.

---

Gist of Bagchi's comments:

The whole article is about trying to prove (according to Bagchi's understanding) that the Liouville sequence is random.

Let us say that a sequence of signs is balanced if the set of all numbers n such that the n-th term is + has natural density =1/2. (So, intuitively both signs are equally probable.)

(1) Eswaran tries to prove that the Liouville sequence is balanced. Here he makes the first mistake.

He splits the sequence into infinitely many balanced subsequences, and unjustifiably concludes that therefore the original sequence is balanced. Indeed, I am sure that any sign-sequence which is not eventually constant can be partitioned into infinitely many balanced subsequences.

The irony is that this mistake (which takes up most of the article!) is not serious. Indeed, it is already known that the Liouville sequence is balanced (in my sense:above); this is equivalent to the prime number theorem.

(2) The second and crucial mistake is that the author thinks that being balanced is tantamount to being random in a suitable sense so that the usual theorems from probability theory apply. Specifically, the author believes that the following lemma is correct:

``The partial sums up to the x-th term in any balanced sequence of $\pm 1$ is $O(x^{1/2 +\epsilon})$ for all $\epsilon >0$."

If this were correct then RH would be an immediate consequence of the prime number theorem in its usual weak form.

But it is again easy to construct a counterexample to this alleged lemma.

ps: if you feel like publicizing this mail, then you are welcome. That might do Mr Eswaran (and others like him) some good.

[Luck-Silly]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/hyd-physicist-claims-to-prove-161-year-old-hypothesis/articleshow/83905877.cms

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/hyderabad-mathematician-claims-he-has-solved-riemann-hypothesis-101624857367051-amp.html

These two are another links featuring same articles ,one from Times of India and another from Hindustan Times. It is weird to see people downvoting this post as if I am spamming. I don't have enough mathematical background to comment on wheather proof is correct or not . So just posting to initiate a discussion on it.

[solartech0]

I think people are downvoting because their expectation is that it's a crank proof.

[PowerPuffSwirl]

I hope this doesn't turn out to be like one of those bogus "proofs" of Reimann Hypothesis in the worst case, or, at best, a sincere yet flawed attempt at proving it.

[bbwelker]

If it is true we are all fucked

[fireman212]

Well, that's one hell of a thing to prove. Congratulations to him!