Timeline for Have mathematicians concluded that an Indian mathematical physicist has solved the Riemann Hypothesis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2, 2021 at 20:15 | comment | added | user1271772 | Then the next email by E talks about the Good and Chuchhouse paper. So I would not say "there is no math discussion in either email". I'm not sure why this comment chain starting here is necessary anyway. | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 20:12 | comment | added | user1271772 | The next email by N says "I agree that the similarity of the considered sequence of values of the lambda-function with a random walk gives some reasons to believe in the truth of the conjecture. A similar idea appears already in the literature. In the attachment you will find a paper which perhaps will be of interest to you. It has been written by Good and Churchhouse published in the journal Mathematics of Computation (vol. 22, 1968, 857--861) a time ago with a similar heuristical approach to the Riemann Conjecture, based on the sequence of non-zero values of the Moebius function." | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 19:34 | comment | added | Moishe Kohan | @user1271772: Yes, I have read the 4 page pdf file and what I wrote is based on that reading. As I said, there is nothing there to address item (1) except for a reference to the 1943 paper, stating that the required measure and the proof of the needed statement are there. As for the subsequent email exchange, you are right, there are two more messages from N., but there is no math discussion in either one: both convey the same message. | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 19:18 | comment | added | user1271772 | Narkiewicz considers Eswaran's argument to be a heuristic one, which is not what Narkiewicz says he would consider a "proof". | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 19:18 | comment | added | user1271772 | @MoisheKohan I don't think I'd say he "simply refers to the 1943 paper" because in addition to referring to that paper, he gave a 4-page PDF of his own explanations, and I don't think anyone "finished the correspondence in his next email" because there was still correspondence from both parties after "his next email". I tried to be as accurate as I could in my description of the correspondence, without making my answer too much longer than I thought would be appropriate here: Bottom line is that | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 19:08 | comment | added | Moishe Kohan | @user1271772: The thing is, in his April 3 email Narkiewicz (item 1) pointed out at the specific issues that E. has to address. In his reply, instead of addressing this issue, E. directs him to a 1943 paper in a physics journal. Instead of specifying, as requested, a probability space, sigma-algebra and measure, and explaining why almost-every behavior that ergodic arguments typically establish, would apply to every element of the probability space, he simply refers to the 1943 paper. No wonder that N. simply finished the correspondence in his next email. | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 18:14 | history | edited | user1271772 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| S Jul 2, 2021 at 18:14 | history | suggested | GoodDeeds | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed minor typos
|
| Jul 2, 2021 at 18:12 | comment | added | user1271772 | @DanBron Thanks! I think our analyses of the reviews are also different. For example, immediately below "Review 1" in Dan's answer, is a quote from the two reviewers "We found Dr. Eswaran's work quite stimulating of mathematical ideas, and believe that his work should be brought to the attention of a wider scholarly audience; that is, the proof (or selected portions of the methodology) should be published" which at first made me think the proof was approved. The quote I showed, from the same reviewers, was the part that says "we are not sufficiently familiar in order to speak authoritatively." | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 18:05 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 2, 2021 at 18:14 | |||||
| Jul 2, 2021 at 18:01 | comment | added | Dan Bron | @user1271772 Ah, I see. I do think Dan’s answer highlights, early on and throughout, that the reviewers did not approve of the proof. But the other element - evaluating their credentials - I do see as a clear difference between the two answers. | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 17:59 | comment | added | user1271772 | @DanBron Absolutely! My answer at no point complains about who the reviewers are. My "summary" section points out that the reviewers did not approve of the proof, whereas Dan's main point seemed to be that only one of the reviewers is a "real" mathematician. Dan asked me to write my own answer, after we exchanged some comments, which were unfortunately deleted (despite our part of the discussion being quite civil, though the mod's comment indicates there was worse going on in that comment thread, separate from me) before the chain was moved to chat, so unfortunately they're gone now. | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 17:54 | comment | added | GoodDeeds | Your edit seems to be commented out, and so is invisible. | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 17:10 | comment | added | Dan Bron | Can you clarify or highlight where you answer adds incremental information or sheds additional light over Dan Romik's earlier answer, which takes the same tack (analyzing the reviewers, their credentials, and their conclusions), but in depth? | |
| Jul 2, 2021 at 17:07 | history | edited | user1271772 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 400 characters in body
|
| Jul 2, 2021 at 15:52 | history | answered | user1271772 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |