unforum

[locqust]

To be honest I keep seeing what I saw last time 3F495 or 15,495!

[Magma]

In desperation, I just tried:

$1,000,000

and

PCL10,000,000

on a whim that the proof may be just that. Oddly enough, it didn't work.

[JebJoya]

[Guin]

okay to finally prove I have lost the plot I have spent a few days looking at this through a variety of methods. I did not go as far as some (and my activities did not include a microwave, freezer or any other such household item!)

I am almost certain that there is a stereogram hidden in the upper 2 portions of text. I can not quite put my finger on it and may have to adjust my methods. However, I can sort of see the following:

(?)E V (or I V) E S (or 1 3)

second block harder to see but I get:

(?) (?) V (or N) E E

Now I know it looks total gibberish but I have waited on posting this as I wanted to be sure and I am quite convinced that there is something.

I seem to think there is a link with Riemann and stereographs (something about the Riemann Plain)

Anyway I may also be totally mad. But I am wondering if this is not the question we are looking for and we need to find a better way of veiwing the question hidden in the text

[locqust]

I just tried 3D glasses and managed to hurt my eyes straining at the card...so still not really sure if anything is there

[EvilGenius]

Correct me if I'm wrong (please) but isn't the "implication" in the last sentence backwards? It says that if the Riemann Hypothesis is wrong then that implies a certain order to the primes; surely it should say that if the Riemann Hypotheses is correct it would imply a certain order to the primes. Or do I just not get it? If I'm right, it's a pretty big mistake and possibly a clue to what this is all about. I considered just what order would be implied by the Hypothesis being false - the primes would be randomly distributed (I tried "random" and "random distribution" already). Anyone think this means something? And what about that number (7235733)? Kinda besides the point if it wasn't meaningful. BTW - I'm playing in Vancouver and, for a lark, thought I'd try that as a local phone number (as if, but one clue was focussed in Toronto so who knows, right? We do have a store here selling cards, one of the original nine, so it could happen). As it turns out, the nice woman who answered the phone told me that she didn't have time to talk and didn't know anyone named Raymond Hypotenuse I nearly had a stroke
Very Happy

[Bendover]

Hello, I'm new to perplex city and I am trying to solve what cards I can as /before I get them. As I read the posts the one thing that seems clear is that the equation itself is not generally thought of as solvable.The reference to theClaymath millenium problems suggests that the question/answer might be related to that site. As I do not have the card yet I am going to try to compare the card wording to the Claymath site wording to see if there are any differences or additions or any thing that stands

Right off the top I noticed that the formula printed on the card scanned is different than the formula on this page of the Claymath site.I don't know if this is a minor change but it seems to change the equation functioin http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/Sarnak_RH.pdf[/url]

[EvilGenius]

Don't think so

[Bendover]

I continued reading the link you posted and I found that the Reimann equation was used in other mathmatic problem solving including Andrew Wiles modular elliptical curves with which he ultimately solved Fermat's Last Theorem. (the most famous of the references at the end of the document)
Any thoughts in that direction, or do you think it is a dead end?

[EvilGenius]

Well, I think that at this point it could be related to anything. My thinking is that there are two things clearly out of place on this card and, given the quality of puzzles so far, I have a hard time believing they are both unrelated to the solution. The first is the error in the final sentence regarding the inplication of the hypothesis being false (unless someone more learned can show me that I'm mistaken in my interpretation - I'm no math major and could have this by the wrong end). That's a major error that makes me wonder about what is being said about the distribution of primes (are they random or predictable?) The other thing is the rather pointless parenthetical statement about how many digits in the largest prime as of 2004. I haven't yet checked to see if that is true or not but so what either way? This has nothing to do with the Riemann Hypothesis which is about distribution, not any prime number in particular. Someone decided to print this on the card regardless and I have a hard time thinking it was just somebody musing innocently about trivialities unrelated to the solution. I could maybe excuse the error in the wording (again, someone please verify or contradict my thinking on this) but the part about the length of the longest prime circa 2004 just has to be significant. One thing I am convinced of, for a variety of reasons already posted, is that solving the Riemann Hypthesis per se is not what we are being asked to do. On a related note, does anyone have any thoughts on the size of the solution box? It's really quite big, considering, so maybe they are looking for a sizable answer - a quotation, paragraph, something like that. The couldn't be asking for an real proof. As if the autosolver could parse a real math proof, with syntax, capitalization, spacing, everything identical to it's reference answer! Just one more reason it couldn't really be a proof the equation. Maybe they want proof that there is a prize for solving the Reimann Hypothesis and someone should try the official posting outlining this, in it entirety. That would solve this trouble. Please comment. I haven't noticed these obervations approached before but, since we arent' getting anywhere otherwise, brighter folks could maybe make something of these musings.

[Guin]

I think that the card is only making the point that in abstract mathematics a lot of problems have been solved on the assumption that the hypothesis is true, where as on the Clay Mathematics site they simply say:

[Guin]

[JayJay]

Comments please. Starring at this card makes me see things like the below. Another printing error maybe.
Scanned and then blew it up a bit!
Ah yeah maybe someone else can confirm the bottom line is bigger thicker anyway.

[modern_hero]

Edit: never mind. Got something completely mixed up.

[Bendover]

I checked on this website http://primes.utm.edu/notes/by_year.html#table2 and for 2004 there was 7,235,733 digits, in then the longest prime so in that, the card is correct.
The site that I investigated was interesting in that the prime is a Mersenne prime. also there is a group actively looking for Mersenne primes called G.I.M.P.S.http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Other than how it relates to this card it is a interesting site by itself.