unforum

[BluesScale]

This looks like good work but I don't wholly agree with sic4

Commas can be used to bracket text, although it is an older style, and accordingly it is valid to use paired brackets here.

Blues

[Guin]

have got this stuff together for my bro and he is going to look over it this weekend (I will bribe him with beer - after he has completed the task!)

I am also going to post my other thoughts later - now i need to eat

[jpwelton]

First, well done craig for bringing it toegther so we can all work from the same hymn sheet, as it were.
Second, (Unfortunately!) most people read the text on page 27 about the letters page in the sentinel to be a clue towards proof reading. The actual letter reads like an indication that something could be censored...perhaps by mind candy, perhaps by a transit through the link...so perhaps everything we need to solve the card ISNT on it. I cant find the interview the letter relates to on the sentinel pages, when I click on interviews it comes up with something about a subscription - have I missed something here, can I susbcribe to the sentinel to check this theory out (or if someone else already does, can they do it?! Laziness is ace!)

[EvilGenius]

Query - in pursuing the proof reading notion (which I also think deserves attention) which would more likely be considered our "proof" for the solve: the text with [sic] at the appropriate spots, or the corrected text? With only three tries daily it would speed things up considerably if we could discard one of these conditions. Thoughts?

BTW - I have to agree with those who insist noobs get their act together before posting nonsense. I just started and wouldn't dare post here until I read absolutely everything I could find to catch up. It's not too much to ask, really.

[EvilGenius]

jpwelton - the interview I think you are loooking for is front page: Earth Interviews: Mind Candy's Andrea Phillips. And, as far as I know, you can't subscribe to the Sentinel. Someone enlighten both if otherwise.

[magicmancraig]

[EvilGenius]

I can live with that logic (that we should include the mark-up) - I'll make a few more attempts tonight when my card is unlocked. Do you think the text in the pointy circle thingy whould be included? There's going to be a million ways to input this, depending on one's grammatical tastes . . . Oh, well - bravely forward!

BTW - I don't think anything can be considered too easy at this point since, if it was truly easy, someone would have sorted this out a long time ago. The answer is always easy once you know what it is Whatever the solution it has taken a lot of people a long time just to get this far so this solve (when it comes) will be a triumph whatever the details.

[x]

My post wasnt directed at you Oliver. Was directed at EkoeEkoe.

I accept your views. I was trying to encourge him to continue his help.

I appreciated it, no one else did. I was just defending him.

I like the people who make small contributations, i value them.
As do i like people who are stubbornly out of the box when it comes to
thinking, regardless of whats been accepted as truth.

Heck isnt that what we are doing on Riemann anyways? Stubbornly trying
to disprove something that the math world has accepted as truth?



...Im sorry if i made you think i was angry at you. It was not my intention.

No hard feelings Mate, Eh?

[magicmancraig]

[hairysocks]

I put a [sic] next to the [equation] because I think its is possibly slightly wrong.

This wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_Zeta_function has no colon before the equals sign in the formula.

I also notice that on the following wikipedia page the Riemann hypothesis is also called the Riemann zeta-hypothesis (note the hyphen that isn't in the opening paragraph of the reference on the above wikipedia page):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis[/url]

[lownote]

I have to say if the proofreading track is the right one, its a bit boring!

On another tack, I just thought I'd throw this one in - the Riemann zeta hypothesis has a related hypothesis (kind of a subset) which has a known proof. Its even referenced within the clay prize site:

Katz, N.: An overview of Deligne's proof of the Riemann hypothesis for
varieties over finite fields, Proc. of Symposia in Pure Math. 28, 275-305,
Am. Math. Soc. 1976.

This is also referred to as the Weil Conjectures, (Hilbert's 21st problem).

The actual proof is here:

Deligne, P.: La conjecture de Weil, I, Pub. Math. I.H.E.S 43, 273-307
(1974).

With a follow-up:

Deligne, P.: La conjecture de Weil, II, Pub. Math. I.H.E.S 52, 137-252
(1980).

For this work Deligne received an award in 2004:

"... for major contributions to several important domains of mathematics (like algebraic geometry, algebraic and analytic number theory, group theory, topology, Grothendieck theory of motives), enriching them with new and powerful tools and with magnificent results such as his spectacular proof of the "Riemann hypothesis over finite fields" (Weil conjectures)." (emphasis mine)

Looks pretty promising I think.

[PuzzledPineapple]

[EvilGenius]

I agree that the notation for the equation is correct - the Millenium prize folk have a pdf outlining precisely what is to be solved (I posted it some pages back) and the card is exactly the same as the formal description. As for including it in the answer, I don't see why a copy and paste wouldn't work. We'll have to try it both ways, I suppose.

As for the last attempt at proofing this: my grammer obviously sucks 'cause I can't think of reasons for some of the mark-up. What's wrong with "upon" for instance, or that the sentence is in brackets - unneeded surely but wrong?

Even if this is the right tack it's gonna take forever to try all the possibilites. Is there a standard reference that academics in the UK would use for this? We Canadian's play a little fast and loose with grammer, never up to the level of stodgy the British can manifest. (I'm gonna go out on a limb and try running this through Word's grammer checker - we needed to resort to using Explorer once to solve a card, who know?).

[ALISDAIRPARK]

[EvilGenius]

Here is my effort to correctly render the card as a final copy - is there anything that still needs correcting and why?

Prime numbers are numbers that cannot be divided by any number except themselves and 1. For example, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 17 are all prime numbers. Aside from their theoretical interest large prime numbers have become increasingly important in day-to-day life since they underpin the cryptography that allows secure transactions to take place on the Internet (such as encrypting your credit card details when you buy online).

While there are standard techniques to discover new primes and, more importantly, check whether a number really is a prime, mathematicians have not been able to discover if there is any order to the way in which primes are distributed. However, the German mathematician G.F.B. Riemann (1826-1866) noticed that the frequency of primes is highly related to the Zeta function, now known as the Riemann Zeta function.

[EQUATION]

The Riemann Hypothesis is that 'the real part of any non-trivial zero of the Riemann Zeta function is 1/2.' It sounds complicated (and it is!) but a lot rests on whether his hypothesis is true. There are many equations in abstract mathematics that have been solved on the assumption that the hypothesis is true – and, if it isn't, then not only would we have to look at those equations again, but it would also imply that there is a certain order to primes.

(As of 2004, the largest known prime was 7235733 digits long!)

$1,000,000 prize offered on solving this puzzle see
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/

There are still bits I don't like (upon in the last sentence, that the implication of the hypothesis being wrong is misstated, I took out other from the first line as it is useless there). If we're on the right track we must be getting close.

BTW - the grammer checker idea was a total wash; it flagged everything as wrong except for the bits that actually were.