Do all of the non-trivial roots of the Riemann zeta function

>>8530008

Yes.

>>8530034
Congratulations sir or madam, your $1000,000 cheque is in the post.

>>8530008

That's the million dollar question.

:^)

Almost certainly, considering the statistical evidence, even though there's no proof yet.

Almost certainly not, but the roots that aren't on the line are likely so large that we cannot currently compute them.

>>8530035
thank

>>8531027
>Statistical evidence
Sir I might suggest you kill yourself dear sir?

>>8530008
I'll give you the proof once I'm done feeding the cat

i have a wonderful proof but it's too large to be contained in a 4chan post

>>8532105

Is it me, or is Fermat the ultimate master baiter?

>>8532121
Fermat probably thought he had a proof. Its unlikely that he was either trolling or actually had a real proof.

>>8532224
He was probably writing a proof for Fermat's last theorem using his methods for proving individual cases like n=3,4,5, methods like infinite descent.
Then he gave up because he couldn't prove it.
I'm guessing he wrote that he had a proof before giving up on it, he probably had an incomplete proof that he was confident would work at that point.