Riemann Hypothesis is a Theorem

Ophiolite · Jan 13, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
It isn't. AI (mostly LLMs) are sentence completion algorithms. It is not alive.

I find similarities between how I construct sentences and the LLM approach. Often I can begin a sentence with practically know idea where it might end up or how it might actually get there. Such was the case in point with that last one. And that one too. I sometimes feel I'm an observer waiting for my subsconscious to activate my speech mechanism.

Omega constant · Jan 13, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
It is not alive.

Trump is naming current AI not AI, but Supreme Intelligence (SI). So, soon it will be alive.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 13, 2026

Omega constant said:
Trump is naming current AI not AI, but Supreme Intelligence (SI). So, soon it will be alive.

It's a computer programme. It's not alive.

Hans Blaster · Jan 13, 2026

Omega constant said:
Trump is naming current AI not AI, but Supreme Intelligence (SI). So, soon it will be alive.

What's Trump got to do with this? He's a nI. (non-intelligence)

Omega constant · Jan 13, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
It's a computer programme. It's not alive.

It pretends being not alive.

Hans Blaster · Jan 13, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... and the purpose of that information is... what?

To demonstrate what a fool the author of the book is. Imagine paying amazon $500 for 10 copies of your own book.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 13, 2026

Omega constant said:
It pretends being not alive.

It's not alive.

And the author of the paper is still a crank, regardless of everything else.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 13, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
To demonstrate what a fool the author of the book is. Imagine paying amazon $500 for 10 copies of your own book.

There is that for sure.

Hans Blaster · Jan 13, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I have no idea what to do with that page since it's a website I'm majorly unfamiliar with, but I stand by my original comment of: From the works I've seen of his, it seems like he had good reason to be banned.

arxiv.org is for posting preprints of articles that are under peer review. They don't strictly enforce the "submitted for peer review" thing and some are preprints of non-reviewed conference proceedings. Using the "ADS" link on the right, I can see the paper has no citations (no surprise there).

Omega constant · Jan 13, 2026

Larniavc said:
It is trash.

No, it is not a trash. Trash is in a kitchen. It is collection of mathematical symbols, which has meaning.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 13, 2026

Omega constant said:
No, it is not a trash. Trash is inn your kitchen. It is collection of mathematical symbols, which has meaning.

That's for others to decide, not you.

Omega constant · Jan 13, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
That's for others to decide, not you.

It is not enough to say "it is trash", I am asking for more information about the paper.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 13, 2026

Omega constant said:
It is not enough to say "it is trash", I am asking for more information about the paper.

Some times, that is all needs be said.

Omega constant · Jan 13, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Some times, that is all needs be said.

Is there trash in introduction part of the paper? No. Hence, trash is in proof part of the paper?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 13, 2026

Omega constant said:
Is there trash in introduction part of the paper? No. Hence, trash is in proof part of the paper?

The commentary about 'All-Knowing Ones' definitely brings down any credibility in the paper for sure.

Omega constant · Jan 13, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
The commentary about 'All-Knowing Ones' definitely brings down any credibility in the paper for sure.

It is now corrected.

PloverWing · Jan 13, 2026

Omega constant said:
It is not enough to say "it is trash", I am asking for more information about the paper.

Okay then. Here's what I suggest.

1) I think you're claiming that you've proved a theorem. Clearly state the theorem. Follow this statement with a proof of the theorem -- a chain of reasoning that has the theorem as its conclusion.

2) To clarify what I mean: Don't just say "the Riemann Hypothesis". State what the Riemann zeta function is, and exactly what Riemann hypothesized about it.

3) F-sub-i has a prominent place at the end of section 1, but I don't see where it's defined. Define it clearly.

4) At the end, when you say "try F-sub-1 = F-sub-2 = ...", it looks like you may be limiting yourself to a special case, which wouldn't then prove the theorem in the general case. Clarify this.

5) Write for an audience that is mathematically well-informed but that may not have studied the Riemann Hypothesis in particular. Don't just put equations on the page without context. Surround them with a bit of explanation: what intuition or meaning is trying to be captured by the equation for phi, for G, for Omega, for mu?

That's some of what I would say if I were a reviewer.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 13, 2026

Omega constant said:
It is now corrected.

But we know.

Omega constant · Jan 13, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
But we know.

Same thing has happened with supervisor of my doctoral thesis. He got to know that I am Christian, so, he said "either this or doctoral thesis."

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 13, 2026

Omega constant said:
Same thing has happened with supervisor of my doctoral thesis. He got to know that I am Christian, so, he said "either this or doctoral thesis."

No idea what that has to do with the fact that in your original conclusion, you blatantly and clear bring up non-scientific claims with the comment on 'All-Knowing Ones' to try and explain your works.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Riemann Hypothesis is a Theorem

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Area Meathead

Active Member

Area Meathead

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Area Meathead

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads