RH -- Sir Atiyah

[EdLee]

Tiny typo on page 2. ( Surely completely innocuous. )

IMG_0487.PNG (112 KiB) Viewed 17624 times

sample initial reception

[zorq]

Tiny typo on page 2. ( Surely completely innocuous.)

Unfortunately, nothing in that note is correct.

[Elom]

It reminds me of the ceremonial every-twenty-years fusion energy furor (non-scientists mos-interpret scientific results).

[Knotwilg]

Tiny typo on page 2. ( Surely completely innocuous.)

Unfortunately, nothing in that note is correct.

At least it's imprecise.

[zorq]

Unfortunately, nothing in that note is correct.

At least it's imprecise.

Not imprecise. It is total rubbish. It shows that this famous powerful mathematician has lost his mental faculties.

[EdLee]

The pros are being cautious.

[jlt]

This looks like an 89 year-old 9p claiming for the third time he can still win an international tournament and play blitz while his opponent plays slowly.

[Tryss]

The pros are being cautious.

No, they are not cautious, they are polite.

But yeah, it's sad... and probably hard to manage for everybody involved

[EdLee]

To be skeptically cautious and polite are not mutually exclusive.

[Tryss]

To be skeptically cautious and polite are not mutually exclusive.

When I say "they are not cautious, they are polite", I mean that, if it was not Atiyah or another great mathematician past his prime, they would probably say "Is this a joke? That's rubbish, there's nothing of value here" instead of "I'm skeptically cautious".

[EdLee]

We wait and see.

[Gomoto]

Let us ask Leela Zero about the winrate.

[dfan]

In math, either you have a proof, where each step logically (provably) follows from some set of previous steps, concluding with the final result, or you don't, because, say, you can't prove that step G follows from step F. Your proof might have an error, and people might find that error once you publish it, but you don't publish it thinking that it's 50-50 whether there's an error or not.

If you have an proof, you show it, and you say "I have a proof". You don't say "it seems like step F points towards step G, I wonder why"; if that were the case, it wouldn't be a proof, and you wouldn't publish it. You might say to your colleagues, "Hey, I feel like step F should imply step G, and if I could show it, I would have a proof of Z, does anyone have any bright ideas", or you might publish a conjecture that Z is true. But published proofs occur at a point in the process well past "It seems like such-and-such, I wonder why".