unforum

[Magma]

Just had a crazy idea, maybe they wanted to see evidence of a what defines a proof, rather than a proof itself. Tried:

QED
Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Neither worked. Oh well.

[doublecross]

[Guin]

[fretty]

Just looking at the reply recieved from MC on the thirteenth labour thread and they say that this card is solvable and is not a trick question. So there must be something to do on this card.

[locqust]

Has anybody read the sentinel thread? It does mention the riemann card and that indeed the hypothesis needs to be solved, although this isnt confirmed

[donstobbart]

I know that my suggestions are not lateral, but nothing seems to be working, so.... how about a rendition of the function, using a real prime number. Wouldn't have the first clue where to start to do this though, but by doing that, we could prove the theorum works, even if its not proved for all the prime numbers.

Don

[downloader7]

I quite like that idea of actually putting in a prime number. But ill make a suggestion of doing it step by step therefore actually showing your proog on how you got there.

Im quite suprised that no one has thought of this.

Nice one donstobbart

[doublecross]

Remember the maximum length of text it will accept is 1990 characters.

[pheebs]

[GinGenie]

Is been said before, but if the message is hidden, then this may help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

I particularly like the idea with the different picture brightnesses, around the equation on my card there does seem to be quite a few extra coloured dots, though they may of course just be printing errors. It might be an idea also to check for slight variations in font size or word spacing, which wouldn't necessarily be visible to the naked eye.

[dj Relish]

tiag- if the Hypothesis had to be solved / proven, MC would be advertising the £1M rather than £100,000! dont ya think?

[x]

Ok the problem here is to actually PROOF reinmann Theory, we would have to test every prime possible, or find a way to mathmatically show that every prime would satisfy this equation.

Essentially the issue is thats what this theory was designed to do, "define the ordering of prime numbers as a function"

So how can we proof something using itself? It doesnt work... So we have to break it down further. What is a prime number. How do you determine a number is prime? Is there a mathmatical formula that will determine primeness from any X given? Can we somehow plug the fundamentals of what a prime is and come up with a variable version of all primes?and plug into the Reinmann formula and proof it for the Set of all Prime numbers.

Essentially we need to find a formula that defines prime numbers by their properties. And use that.

This is assuming we are even trying to "actually" proof this.

[x]

Riemann's Theory is basicly defining a property of Prime numbers that no other numbers share.

...
We might as well list properties of Primes.

all Prime numbers are odd.

prime numbers can only be divided by 1 or itself to produce a whole number


http://primes.utm.edu/

[Jakeo]

[Curlytek]