unforum

[virtuosity]

Ok, So attempt numer 1 by me with the postings didn't go very far, but here we go again.

I know that this may seem a little left field, but hey, worth a try.

After watching film 2006 on tv this afternoon, they were talking about a new movie being released called "PROOF" about a mathmatician that dies leaving all his work behind. In it there is the answer to one of the longest standing maths questions. I'm yet to find out what the math puzzle is, but does anyone think that this might be the way forward?
http://www.miramax.com/proof

Fingers Crossed.

V.

[European Chris]

I'd be suprised as the card would have be written eight months ago.

Mark Kermode doesn't appear that happy about the film though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/entertainment/kermode.shtml

[pheebs]

helpful?

http://www.math.purdue.edu/~branges/riemannzeta.pdf

if it is, i'd like the answer please, hehe!

[noodrez]

Now, I've not got the card, but reading through this thread, I have noticed one thing from both the text and the answers. MC never actually porperly define a prime number on the card. They say almost all of the definition, but not one vital word. Prime numbers are anly prime in terms of integers. If you go out into real numbers, then there is no concept that can be called a prime, as any number can be multiplied by something to obtain any other number (for example, I could do 10 x -0.5 to obtain 5 which is a prime number, or 2 x 2.5, and so on)

I know its not a proof or any kind of solution on its own, but for something as mathematical as this, it seems like a fairly prominent ommision.

[pheebs]

is this of any use?

http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/zeta/RHproofs.htm

also - the theorum proved in PROOF is never mentioned, although Gwyneth Paltrows character solves a previously unproven theorum and she also has a conversation with Jake Gyllenhaal's character about GERMAINE PRIMES (2 prime +1 = prime no).


relevant? i failed maths so i have no idea if i'm even talking sense LOL.

maybe mind candy are just waiting for the hypothesis to be proved by some math genius so then we can answer it, lol

[bertyb]

Hey all,

I want to try and focus peoples minds on this to what I have so far learnt about this card and clear up a few things that people have been asking about over the time this card has been in existence.

It has been confirmed more than once from official channels that everything we need to solve this card is self contained as like every other card out there.

We do not need to solve the Riemann Problem.

We know that the card itself actually states no question as such, but does make a lot of statements.

On the solve page it asks us to show "your proof" and has a spelling correction on his name.

The card itself is riddled with spelling and punctuation errors and even the layout of the card colours etc is different to all the others.

And Von's clue doesnt work unless you change the spelling on it.

We know the longest prime number is wrong, the longest prime on the card is now only the 3rd or 4th biggest prime in existence - and they each have different names.

To me the common link in this card is errors.....I still have absolutely no idea how to solve it based on this but I think this is the direction people should be concentrating there efforts.

There obviously is some hidden agenda with this card as the card must have a solve in the website - and if somebody should prove the Riemann theory and put that into the solve page it will still come up with incorrect answer as it is still unproven.

I just hope this triggers something in somebody elses thought process as well....I will continue along this path and hope people join me.

[bertyb]

Just so others dont waste there time - my 3 attempts today were lateral thinking and I tried in the answer box:

[unrealt87]

Hey all.

my tries for today were

[OK13-nli]

People, there's really no need to post failed attempts in spoilers. What exactly would be spoilt if you read someone's failed attempts?

[AngusA]

I recently read the Crytonomicon which says that the Riemann Zeta function can be used to generate random or pseudo-random numbers which could then be used to code a message. I've tried to find things on the net about this but no joy so far.

Can anyone here help?

[Jakeo]

Not alot more to say than what you just said.

The output of the Riemann-Zeta function is a pseudo random number generator. As a result it can be used as cipher stream to add to the plaintext in order to produce the cipher text.

The idea is principally a vernam cipher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernam_cipher) in that the output stream of the function is added to the plaintext to produce the cipher text.

Hope that helps.

[mistermole]

Could it be that the card is alluding to "prime" number as in most important or main number and that this stuff about riemann etc is all just an elaborate red herring? My thoughts are that the answer could be 6, because there are 6 planes on a cube. Or 8 because there are 8 points.

I know this is absurdly simple but I'm remembering Polar and how absurd that answer was.

[AngusA]

Jakeo, just to clarify, if I put a value of 2 in the RZF the answer is (pi^2)/6. So the random numbers would be the sequence of numbers ignoring the point?

[XrayIan]

Like several others, I have thought for a while that the proof in question may indicate proof read or produce a textual proof of the equation. Used my three attempts tonight encoding the Riemann equation in LaTex ie..

\begin{equation}
\zeta(s) := \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^s}
\end{equation}

Unfortunately no joy

[JayJay]

How do you go about feeding numbers into this equation?
For instance if I wanted to feed the number 13!?

I am fairly mathmatical and thought maybe we have to use the equation somehow to find the solve.