The authors of the putative proof of the Riemann Hypothesis
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0208221
(For citations and UK downloads, see:
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:hep-th/0208221)
have also written a couple of other papers prior to this on the same
topic:
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0009014
(Citations and UK downloads from Citebase, see:
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:hep-th/0009014)
and
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0107266
(Citations and UK downloads from Citebase:
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:hep-th/0107266)
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0009014 is listed as published
in the journal Chaos Solitons Fractals
See Scirus:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O5AE620B3
For other links see Paracite:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y21E230B3
Dramatic research that is incorrect, quackery or not, either disappears
unnoticed, or, if noticed, is exposed to much greater scrutiny than the
limited peer-review that publication requires. The self-corrective
nature of science is helped rather than hindered by open access - any
and all can judge for themselves.
Regardless, anyone who relies on slashdot hyperbole or the journalistic
press for their scientific information would be foolish indeed - I'm sure
arXiv.org users don't.
All the best,
Tim.
[Moderator's Note: One of the references cited by the authors is
a paper by Andrew Odlyzko, who is on this list; perhaps Andrew
can give us his view of this putative proof, and of the general
likelihood of uncorrected errors persisting and compromising further
research? -- SH]
Arthur P. Smith wrote:
>Some of you may be interested in the following "slashdot" discussion
>from a day or two ago:
>
>http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/03/1224243&mode=thread&tid=93&tid=134&tid=146
>
>titled "Riemann Hypothesis Proved?" quoting a Swedish newspaper
>(apparently the major print news outlet in Sweden) which bases its story
>on an article "published" last year in arXiv.org, linking to:
>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0208221
>
>This paper has been on the arXiv since August last year, with a couple
>of revisions. Where does it fit in as a proof or non-proof of the
>Riemann hypothesis? Will it actually receive any sort of refutation? It
>seems not to have been written with mathematicians in mind,
>particularly, and none of them in the various comments seem able to
>follow the methods used; most seem very skeptical. Is it right or wrong
>though? Nobody seems sure. Has it been submitted to a peer-reviewed
>journal? It seems not to have been published in one. If citations of
>this paper appear later, will they provide any evidence of its
>correctness or otherwise? If the arguments are refuted as a proof, will
>there be any link or indication of this on arXiv.org? How would a future
>"innocent" third party know what to do when coming upon a paper like
>this in the arXiv, if there is no follow-up (as there currently is none)?
>
>Normally, when a breakthrough of this magnitude (similar to the proof of
>Fermat's Last Theorem) occurs, there is considerable publicity. In this
>case there seems to have been almost none since last August, until now.
>Is that because the authors are unsure themselves? Because the authors
>are unknown? Because nobody reads what's on the arXiv if they don't know
>the authors? Or because no peer-reviewed publication has been involved yet?
>
>Incorrect articles certainly get published in peer-reviewed journals as
>well, although at least in mathematics peer review tends to be quite
>rigorous. But there seems to be some rather serious distinction being
>made in this case - what is it, and what lessons should we draw?
>
> Arthur
>
>--------------------------------
>[Moderator's Note] Relevent Threads:
>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1468.html
>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2340.html
>
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 05 2003 - 13:37:46 GMT