If and when the Riemann hypothesis is proved, what will it mean for mathematics and how possible is it that it will be solved within out lifetime?

If and when the Riemann hypothesis is proved, what will it mean for mathematics and how possible is it that it will be solved within out lifetime?
it would mean pi
They say it is solved....
I am Prof. Zeraoulia Elhadj from the university of Tébessa, Algeria. Please see this link
http://vixra.org/pdf/1210.0176v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1517v4.pdf
its destructive interference obviously. i would love to see this awnser i was trying myself
Hmm, apparently that guy didn't bother with any peer review...
Was his thinking wrong? How so, I'm no good at that level of math. Here's the link I found it at...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...MiLhTBeDSw4Paw
I've just done a quick Google and there's a number of objections.
But the telling thing is that there's no huge fuss about it.
Were his paper to be a genuine answer I'd imagine it'd all over the front pages, much like Wiles and his solution to... whatever technical number thingy he came up with.
the basic idea of p=np was that for all equations there exsits a function to easily generate the awnser
i want to read this math cya
Peer review  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Indeed if Prof Wiles had not had his proof of Fermat’s last theorem* peerreviewed, not only would the public have been sceptical but the proof would actually have been flawed. He thought he had his proof all ready in June 1993 – only for something wrong to be discovered by Nick Katz, one of the referees involved in reviewing his work before its publication. Fortunately Wiles was able to patch up his proof, so that he was able to publish his proof, as we know it, in September 1994. Peer review certainly saved Prof Wiles a lot of embarrassment.
*What he proved was actually the Taniyama–Shimura conjecture for semistable elliptic curves, which was already known to imply Fermat’s last theorem.
j
Last edited by fiveworlds; February 1st, 2013 at 11:44 AM.
Many proofs in number theory which start off by stating "Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis" would be able to drop that part but majority of number theorists assume the truth of the Riemann Hypothesis and carry on really.
What really interests me is the idea that it is false, as a large body of work would suddenly be rather shaky. Further more, the conspiracy among the prime numbers to break their apparent randomness would be quite subtle and that would be interesting of its self.
Worst/Best case is we realize that it is actually independent of ZFC  as this would be the most practical case of this phenomena.
Wouldn't it also prove rather interesting on a cosmic scale, with some rather startling implications, allowing us to actually predict the universe, if the numbers truely are none random and we can predict the next set like in an actual sequence, without actually being able to see it.
i think it would be awesome myself i find it fascinating. But you would need to know alot about it i dont know if we would have enough information to construct it. i reckon it would be exceptionally difficult to find. riemann is just primes imagine a harder eqn. some are easynumber/divisor take divisorothers are more difficultnumber/(divisor(dy/dx)) etc you get the point
Last edited by fiveworlds; February 1st, 2013 at 10:23 AM.
Could some who knows what they are talking about (i.e. almost anyone but fiveworlds) confirm that the Riemann Hypothesis has nothing to do with P=NP ?
Oh c'mon now... I spent almost ten minutes enthralled by the many pretty pictures.
How was the riemann zeta function found?
Last edited by fiveworlds; February 1st, 2013 at 12:35 PM.
well by that i mean the slopes themselves take two electrons separated by a distance. You have no idea at all about where the electron is going to be or how it is going to be moving all you know is that a slope must exsist corresponding to how the position of the electron is changing within an atom. but you do know that it must have a certain amount of energy corresponding to its orbital.is that better?
also the 4 bit is basically that on average an atom should be a sphere approx
I get you im not great at relaying information. Mostly because im terrible at talking to ppl. Perhaps i should try learning tex
I just wanted to see if you could read your own text and aren't trying to intentionally troll us. What's your first language?
english
Alas, how do you communicate with other human beings?
one would imagine that ridiculously eloquent use of language is entirely unecessary on a forum such as this. But perhaps i was misguided in my thinking that i would find a reasonable standard of human being here but obviously one has forgotten the basics of etiquette. If somebody is smart enough to be here you should easily be able to cut through my bullshit and get to the point. Instead i hear words such as troll things i would expect in secondary school but not somewhere people genuinely go to learn. Then people wind up not posting in the physics section because they are afraid of being seen as ignorant or not smart and therefore deny themselves an opportunity learn.
Last edited by fiveworlds; February 1st, 2013 at 09:22 PM.
But there's a difference between being extremely eloquent and comprehensible, is there not?
You've obviously not listened to any actual scientists hashing out new ideas...Instead i hear words such as troll things i would expect in secondary school but not somewhere people genuinely go to learn.
yeah because i didnt have access to the internet. I learned most of what i know from outdated library books
Nonsequitur.
I didn't get to listen to actual scientists via the internet. It wasn't invented then...
so you lived near them lucky you
Not even close.
Since I was interested in science I got nmyself involved in learning everything I could about it. I made an effort instead of expecting to be spoonfed.
I went to learn science from scientists.
Failing that I could have read "outdated" books on the history of science and the debates that went on.
i dont expect to be spoonfed i make an effort to learn science
Mod note This a Mathematics forum, and the topic started as a perfectly question  though unanswerable in my opinion.
The last few posts have been meaningless chatter, so I am locking it
Sorry.
« Fibre Bundles  Completely forgotten complex formula transposition! » 