unforum

[Gibbet]

[duckiemonster]

[hairysocks]

That letter on The Sentinal really does look like a clue. Assuming it is, I have just tried the following answer to the card. It was wrong, but perhaps I'm on the right track:

[Guin]

[hairysocks]

Well I did email MC to ask if a proofreading markup language such as PRML is need to solve the card, and the Sentinal's use of [sic] in the letter is actually a type of markup language, so perhaps my email did the trick.

[EvilGenius]

Agreed - we should try entering either a corrected passage or a properly mark-up one. That seems the most sensible thing I've heard yet. It might take some effort to correct it just right, however. Or maybe my grammer sucks Can we reach some agreement on just what needs fixing? Tried a number of possible corrections but no dice. Now locked out but will keep trying tomorrow. There is still the matter of the last sentence being wrong whatever the grammer . . .

[Bendover]

Reimann Hypothesis Some numbers have the special property that they cannot be expressed as the product of two smaller numbers, e.g., 2, 3, 5, 7, etc. Such numbers are called prime numbers, and they play an important role, both in pure mathematics and its applications. The distribution of such prime numbers among all natural numbers does not follow any regular pattern, however the German mathematician G.F.B. Riemann (1826 - 1866) observed that the frequency of prime numbers is very closely related to the behavior of an elaborate function

ζ(s) = 1 + 1/2s + 1/3s + 1/4s + ...

called the Riemann Zeta function. The Riemann hypothesis asserts that all interesting solutions of the equation

ζ(s) = 0

lie on a certain vertical straight line. This has been checked for the first 1,500,000,000 solutions. A proof that it is true for every interesting solution would shed light on many of the mysteries surrounding the distribution of prime numbers.

Try submitting this description from the Clay Math site. I would try it my self but I have no card (trying to get one) The text is quite a bit different than what's on the card http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/

[oliverkeers13]

[Jakeo]

Let me precede this post with an apology for further inflating this thread. I'll delete it after a portion of time:

[Guin]

Hi guys - few developments. Okies firstly I will post the image of what I think my mania is seeing in the text but I am also persuing the proof reading line too. I am at work at the moment so will post images on my site tonight and put up a link here (I am beiginning to doubt my sanity though!!!) I am also seeing my bro tomorrow as he is the sub-editor on the local wrag and he can proof read (yay!) so hopefully he may be able to do a proofing for us. I tried to make sense of it but figured if he can do it for me i can buy him a pint in return (equally I have been trying to get him into ARGs for a few weeks now but have not had a good enough excuse and this will fit the bill)

Okies I need to look like i am working not ARGing



(I think a group of goldfish have taken over my head! - no that would be the hangover!)

[kie_yeo]

[hexDa3m0n]

OK.

I'm not saying i completely disagree with the idea of having to proof read the card, just that I had a thought, and it was lonely in my head on its own, and wanted to be shared.

If we are meant to proof read the card and re-enter all the text, why have they put the card correction on the solution page? Are people taking this as a hint? I kinda assumed it was because shed loads of people e-mailed them telling them of the error. I know that usually it relates to the correct answer but don't see why it would make a difference if we had to re-enter all the text.

Like I said, not completely disagreeing with the proof read idea, and admittedly, not really sure where we should be heading....but thought it was worth mentioning.

[duckiemonster]

My latest Riemann theory: it's not a proof read. That would be a dissapointing and somewhat irritating answer to an elegant puzzle that's been about for years.

I really do think that the answer to this card is proof of the Riemann hypothesis. I think this card is meant to bug us until the day that some clever mathmo emerges from his dark study, waving a piece of paper in the air and yelling 'beat the bugger!' or local equivalent.

It would also be extremely cool if in 20 years time we're still puzzling over this card.

What's the rush anyways?

[magicmancraig]

I think proof reading is the way to go

Everything adds up now, think about it.There is no question on the card, in the answer box it says show your proof here.The Sentinel posting that bit with lots of [sic] indicating that that is the way to go.Also the correction of the G.F.G Riemann, to obvious!

I have spent a while on this idea (and although not skilled enough to do it on my own) think that the people in these forums can help.

I have found several things wrong(way to many for it to not be done on purpose) these include spellings and punctuation, aswell as gramar.

As we have no where else to go. I highly sugest that we go down the proof reading road, at least until we have another option.

I think we should compile a list of everything that is wrong with the text and also reasons.This way we can make sure everyone knows why there is a [sic] there.I am not 100% sure that we only have to use [sic] I think there may be one or two symbols we have to use.

This is what ive got so far:

[modern_hero]

Euler showed ζ(s) = Σ (1/n)s = Π(1 - p-s)-1, or (1/(1-(1/2)s) × (1/(1-(1/3)s) × (1/(1-(1/5)s) × (1/(1-(1/7)s) × (1/(1-(1/11)s) × ..., which relates the Zeta function to the primes.

Hope it helps.