Will the Riemanm Hypthothesis ever be solved? Like really, it's

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly not by me.

>>8116679
That doesn't look that hard.
Just find the roots for the real part, and then find the roots for the imaginary part, and then you just have to show that they're the same when the real value is [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] in the critical strip.

>>8116724
Do it faggot

I suspect that RH will be solved soon (within the next 2 years) by a computer, and the proof will be enormous.

Then, about 5 years after that, a more concise proof will surface, most likely involving some Mochizuki magic.

>>8117143
This minus the computer part, i think they need more than two years

>>8116724
Thanks for tying up those loose ends for us. Go collect your $1M prize.

File: 313e9201c1d65497c1fe54ac5533486e.jpg (14KB, 236x330px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x330px

>>8116679
i solved it and from looking at the solution im 99% certain im not the first one .

>>8117922
Is the answer [math]\frac{-1}{12}[/math]?

>>8117931
sure

>>8116724
And also that there are no zeros in the critical strip with Re(z) != 1/2, correct?

Fermat's last theorem was solved after 400 years.
The Riemann Hypothesis is probably the most likely of the remaining problems to be solved. We are very close. It probably just needs a unique or nice idea that'll make everything fall right into place.
Next after that is probably the P vs NP problem.

>>8118024
Im pretty sure P =NP will be a mostly trivial constructive proof by absurd. CS is p retarded

File: pepedragon.png (144KB, 363x469px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 363x469px

who gives a shit its just a fucking meme

its the least interesting of the millennium problems after P=NP

Explain something to me. How does the institution know when a proof is good? Wouldn't that require them to already have the answer?

>>8116724
alright, enjoy your $1000000 dude

>>8118056
Come on man please don't be this fucking stupid.

>>8118056
Proofs are a social construct. It's pretty much when most people in the field agree that it's correct. For example Mochizuki hasn't "proved" the abc conjecture yet, because no-one can understand his shit.

is the $1M adjusted for inflation or not?

it's a pretty shitty prize in 2016

>>8118055

>P=NP

I have solved that but too autistic and sociopath to even publish.

Too tired to post it here too.

I am just going to say that P != NP, as everybody already knew anyways.

>>8118074
Did you find an explicit NP problem which can't be solved in polynomial time?
If so, what is it?

>>8118060
there have been millions of proposed answers to P=NP. How do they know that they're wrong and how would they know if one is right? It seems like they're begging to it to be proven right

>>8118084

A variation of the SAT problem using modal logic. Not easy to explain.

>>8118092
A proposed answer is not a fucking proof. If I say "I think the Riemann hypothesis is true" that isn't helpful.

>>8118074
>I have solved that but too
Guess what 1000s of people have solved it. And it's still an unsolved problem. Mysterious.

>>8118108
you're being absurdist and you know it

There have been a shitload of proofs but it's clear that the institution is hoping that someone can make P = NP, probably because of the implications if it were true

>>8118092
Basically a proof has to follow logic, and be mathematically consistent. You either show that something has to be true by using other mathematical facts (for example, the proof that all angles on a triangle add up to 180 degrees is shown by defining the angle of a straight line to be 180 degrees and using the fact that two angles in a "z" shape are always the same), or you show by contradiction, ie. if this mathematical statement were true, it would show us something we know not to be true (for example, one of the proofs that root 2 is irrational does this by showing that a/b =/=root2 since both a and b end up being even numbers, and a number isn't in its lowest form (rational) if both numerator and denominator are even).
There are other ways to prove things (such as induction), and I'm not a mathematician so I'm not qualified/bothered to go into any of those, but that's the gist of it.

But to answer your question, generally proofs are found to be incorrect if the axioms (statements defined to be true) are illogical, the steps are shown to be inconsistent, or by finding simple algebra errors and whatnot.

>>8118116
>There have been a shitload of proofs
So what are some of the most easiest and plausible proofs?

P = NP is the real deal

this is just autism

>>8118118
thx m8y

>>8118118
You are not being clear. You prove something is true (or false) by aplying somehow one of a well defined set of methods,for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

After that, there is no rebutal without going against the laws of logic which rule the universe.

I have the Poincare book sititng on my bookshelf and never opened it. Is it worth reading?