What's the solution to the Riemann hypothesis?

>>8436954
n
Sum of x to y to the pi to the wau tao bow i
i=0

Hypotheses can never be proven (only continuously tested) so there is no solution

the solution is yes

42

>>8436971
haha great meme dude

>>8436963
>Hypotheses can never be proven
People can never be killed because they are by definition alive.

>>8436971
OMG! DO YOU LIKE THAT TOO! I LIKE THAT AND THINK IT'S REALLY FUNNY!

>>8437069
>>8437053

[math]-\frac{1}{12}[/math]

>>8436971

69

HAHAHAHAHA HOLY BALLS THIS IS THE FUNNIEST THING EVER LOOOOOOOOLLLL XDDDDDDDDD R69696969696969696

>>8436954
it's just a special case of the solution to the generalized riemann hypothesis.

>>8436971
xkcd tier humour

>>8436954
1 x 2 x 1 x 3 x 1 x 7

>>8436954

There is a one million dollar prize available to whomsoever may be able to answer this question to the satisfaction of the mathematical community. Unfortunately proofs have been attempted so many times (and have thus far always failed to convince) that mathematicians can't be fucked to just read any old attempt. You have to be taken seriously first, i.e. have a PhD.

Either that, or your proof would have to be so remarkably simple, elegant, and well-contained that it would be intelligible to a competent undergraduate, and thereby grab a sufficiently large number of people's attention /up-front/ that the mathematical community would actually be fucked to read it and closely check it, and then pronounce "yes, this proof is correct."

IIRC the prize only applies in the event that RH turns out to be /true/; I may be mistaken in this.

>>8437620
I think you have to prove it true or false, not by counter example, to get the money

>>8437717
>prove it false
>not by counterexample

el oh el

>>8437730

I understand the thrust of your laughter, and that guy's thing /is/ poorly worded, but it opens possibilities for discussion.

It is quite possible, in general and in principle, to show that such-and-such is false (or true, or the thing's negation is true, say) by means of an /existence/ proof, /which need not actually furnish the specific counter-example itself), and only state that such exist.

So if someone could look at RH and say "there EXISTS a zero off the critical line" or similar, without actually providing definite example of same, then this would suffice to establish the falsity of RH. Then the race would of course be on via supercomputer to try and see if such a number is within our grasp.

>>8437730
>what is a non constructive proof