unforum

[Juxta]

[UKver2.0]

[Juxta]

[Jakeo]

[Juxta]

Who was it who said "You can please some of the people..."?

I like the idea of insoluble problems, and us tackling them. Other people won't like it I know - I'm amazed that I do in fact like it, what with my mildly obsessive tendencies and all, but for some reason, the idea that we could be at this for years has over-ridden my natural instincts of "MUST. SOLVE. ALL. EVERYTHING. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE."



J

[Guin]

when they talked about collaboration maybe they meant we had to form an angry mob and chase the creator of this card to some lonely castle on a mountain brandishing torches and throwing stones!

Quite frankly - anything is possible for this card - proof reading it or solving Riemann - as until its someone gets the 60 points then it not solved!

[vealster]

Hi there I've been playing the game for some time but only just joined up to unficition:

I don't know if it helps but i found this website

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannHypothesis.html

Among other things it states that the $1 Milllion Prize was genuine but was offered in the Year 2000, it does not say if this prize still stands.If this really is worth that much money to solve wouldn't someone from mind candy be a very rich person if they could judge if any submitted answer is %100 correct or not?

also here it states that a mathematician has claimed to have proved it by producing a 124 PAGE PAPER! is the answer to this card going to be that long?

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2004/040608.DeBranges.Riemann.html

sorry if this has all been discussed already

[Mystery In Mind]

Hi! Long time lurker and first time poster.

I have been looking a reimann for a long time as it is one of my favourite cards and have read through the entire thread on it!
I had noticed the mistake on the card that said that said " but it would also imply that there are a certain order to primes" which should actually read that there is NOT a certain order. I know a few people have mentioned this but I have not seen an official response from mind candy on this matter so i emailed them and this is the response I got:

[locqust]

Welcome firstly!

Actually that was very helpful, cos it finally kills off the proof-read theory as they probably wouldn't tell you that if it was part of the puzzle.

So taking this literally by your email, they say we need to prove the Riemann Hypothesis. Not solve it. Solving it would entitle us to a million dollars as we have shown there is an order or not.
Proving it means we have shown how it works.

Just trying to think like an examiner here, where they say "prove this equation equals 10 ³⁶ times more gravity than the another equation."

[FuseGuest]

When MC said "solve" we had a chance of proving it was true for one value
(and hence (solution)
But now they say "prove", it without doubt means we need to prove
the equation is true for all cases, thus earning $1m in the process.

It is the ultimate puzzle card!

Fuseunderground

[locqust]

Ooops my mistake! Yep thats the way round I meant!

[AngusA]

We seem to be going round in circles on this card and not getting too far apart from dismissing the proof reading. I still don't believe that we need to prove the Riemann Hypothesis so my bet is that there is something else hidden on the card either coded into the text or... But who really knows as the card itself doesn't actually say you have to solve anything.

[Fuseunderground]

If we are assuming a full proof is what is required,
MC will probably have an acceptable answer defined when ClayMath
have accepted a proof.

If the submitted proof by Louis De Branges de Bourcia
(as mentioned above) is not disproved by the 8th June 2006
(two years after submission according to the paper date)
Then it looks like it would be accepted as correct.

If this happens we may may be able to paste a copy of the proof,
or at least a link to it, to obtain the solve (and some lovely points).

MC must have known that this had a good chance of happening at that time,
and therefore gambled on it being solved during season 1.

So unless some genius PXC player out there has proved
(but not disproved) the hypothesis, then we may have to wait till June...

That is unless there is a hidden puzzle......

Rich

[Guin]

[x]

Wait so "Louis De Branges de Bourcia" has already submitted a "Proof" of this hypothesis? ... Well omg. This has to be it.

And i agree Juxta, it does seem like actually solving this may end up being our solution. ... And i stick to my views that the email responces for this card are getting Drab. ... but rightly so. It may be they are just trying to focus us by keeping the email comments simple and to the point.

Mystery in Mind has at least exposed the lack of a proof reading puzzle. At least in my eyes.

For me this leaves us with one fact. This IS a math puzzle. It may be as simple as showing that the equation works for a particular prime number, or it may be along the lines of this "Louis De Branges" proof.

Perhaps another email to MC asking just that.
A. Is this puzzle designed to be a test of math skills?
B. is this puzzle related to "Louis De Branges"
C. do we need to plug in a prime for our solution?

I get this impression that theyve focused their responces to only this: "In order to solve the card you need to prove the Riemann hypothesis"

Weve heard this responce twice already.