Riemann hypothesis

what do you mean 'few years gap'?

there hasn't really been any solid progress on the riemann hypothesis, just supporting evidence (especially the riemann hypothesis for varieties which is known to be true)

it'll take a serious breakthrough

>>8503261
>what do you mean 'few years gap'?

>The first successful proof was released in 1994 by Andrew Wiles, and formally published in 1995, after 358 years of effort by mathematicians.

>After nearly a century of effort by mathematicians, Grigori Perelman presented a proof of the conjecture in three papers made available in 2002 and 2003 on arXiv.

It would be nice to have RH solved before 2020.

>>8503283
fermat's last theorem and poincare conjecture have nothing to do with each other though, why do you pair them up?

>>8503287
Because they have been solved *recently* and I'm asking whether we could see a proof for RH in the coming years.

>>8503290
probably not

>>8503292
>probably not
What does make it so difficult to tackle though?
It's the problems itself or do we need an outstanding mathematician like Perelman or Wiles to spend some time on it?

>>8503306
i'd bet wiles has spent hundreds of hours on it already, along with most of the other top number theorists of the past 150 years

it's difficult to tackle because there's no reframing of the problem that seems easier to attack

fermat's last theorem wasn't even proved 'directly', it just happened to be a surprising consequence of a much deeper theorem

the poincare conjecture was proven much more directly but it took a lot of work from other mathematicians before perelman came along with the necessary final steps

>>8503317
Thank you for the answer.

>>8503317
>hundreds of hours
Wiles spent 7 years on it in secrecy, and hours every day. He probably clocked the square of that, or more.

>>8503242
im reaaallly close.
reaaallllly close. almost there.
just a bit longer

>>8504472
How long are you gonna make her wait, anon? Put it in already. It's not going to bite you.

>>8504449
you're talking about fermat's last theorem, not the riemann hypothesis

I think engineers should assume RH is true and make some theories according to this.

does proving or disproving the RH even matter at all for anything

>>8505779
Mathematicians' autism.

>>8505795
well yeah but supposedly proving NP ? P has all kinds of ~crazy~ implications or some stupid bullshit

like that quote about if P = NP it's the equivalent of anyone who can move chess pieces is a grand master

like what