1:06 Introduction 2:30 Who is Riemann and what is the Riemann Hypothethis 4:28 History of the Zeta Function/Euler Product Formula 7:11 Why is the Hypothethis interesting/difficult 9:09 History of Prime Numbers, Little drivel about Ramanujan, Hardy's Umbrella Problem 14:22 Introduction to Quarternions 17:45 Euler and Complex Numbers 19:28 Tribute to Von Neumann 21:52 Generalization of Eulers formula to the Quarternions (Euler-Hamilton Formula) 24:50 Todd polynomials/function 27:55 Infinite iteration of exponentials 30:21 Connection to the Hypothethis 31:48 Fine Structure Constant (preceeded the claimed proof) and Feynmans Elaboration on it 35:55 His Proof of the Riemann Hypothethis (Proof by contradiction) 39:47 "Where do we go from here?" 42:12 Question Time 43:10 "Have you really solved the problem?" -> Unless you dont believe proof by contradiction, then yes. Generalizations have not been solved. 45:05 "When will your proof will be made available?" -> Fine Structure Constant Paper is available, Riemann is basically the slide. 46:28 "You said people dont believe proofs. How high are the stakes for you?" -> Of course he does care. People will not believe proofs unless they involve new ideas. 48:28 Vague attempts at bribery to find the answer to Hardy's Umbrella Problem
Whether his proof is correct or not, this man is a genius! He's 89 & he remembers his numbers and theorems despite having dementia. His wit is on point. Salute to you Sir for having the courage to attempt the problem nobody less than half your age would have the courage to even comment on. It's not disgrace. This lecture is courage, dream, love, hope and belief personified. Who are we to judge this man? We are all just students of nature (at the very best, we are still not as good as him, far alone being nature's favorite student which he and likes of him are) and we'd be lucky if we were half of his genius, if we could do half of what he did, if nature loved us half of how much it loves him. Kudos Sir, keep rocking and dreaming. None of us are ever perfectly correct. Any idea, wrong or right, only helps form a better understanding and that's the reason, the backbone, the thrill that truly curious minds live for. This lecture is an inspiration. Thank you Sir. Amen.
Rest In Peace Michael Atiyah. A friend of mine spoke to him in December two weeks before his death. He had just sent the manuscript of his final proof to several leading mathematicians. My logical side tells me that it can't be right. My heart however keeps hoping!
It would be great if there was a way to download the slides. When lectures are being recorded I could careless about looking at the speaker. The slides should be the larger screen.
Yes, he's completely wrong (according to most credible mathematicians) but I admire his tenacity. He's still trying to make an impact. Still trying to ignite minds. This is not someone who should be mocked. It is someone who should be revered. He may not be the mathematician he once was (that's an understatement) but he's still fairly articulate and I'm sure that he is still capable of being a great ambassador for math. "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt
Love how hypocrites who use TR's quote NEVER apply it to powerless political groups in every nation on earth, fighting & struggling, killing people if necessary, to make the world be more fair & just in their view.
The viewer is supposed to be able to toggle between a close-up view of the speaker or of the slides. You should only have to click on the view that you prefer. It does not seem to work here on youtube.
For all of you looking for a version where you can actually read the slides, you can watch it on the HLF website: www.heidelberg-laureate-forum.org/blog/video/lecture-monday-september-24-2018-sir-michael-francis-atiyah/ and click the symbol in the top right hand corner that says 'Swap Media Elements'.
This video is also available on another stream: hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951d?autoStart=false&popout=true If you open the link, in the upper right-hand corner you will see a few icons (see screenshot attached): · Select the middle icon ‘Slide by Slide’ · Then select the last icon - ‘Swap media elements’
i think, he should have spent less time on history and more on explaining what this mysterious todd function is and what the stuff about iterating exponentials is about. when i iterate exponentials, it either diverges to infinity (for x > 1) or converges to 1 (for x < 1)......but maybe this works only with quaternions? ...no idea. i'm just baffled but i surely hope, the proof holds up
I think that for iterating exponential he means for example x^(x^(x^(x^(...)))). In this case the function is convergent for x greater than 0 and less than e^(1/e), at least on the real line. Maybe there exist a complex extension of the function
@@isaacm.3535. Yes, I can show most of zeros for zeta function are existing but the rest of zeroes not exist on critical line . You can see this fact by using a general rule for prime numbers
@@holofech9744 I know that. There is existing a relation between the distribution of prime numbers with non trivial zeroes of the Zeta function .I can shwo that.
He appealed to authority wayy too blatantly, it makes his arguements and talk feel like a sham. Yes von Neumann was a genius, but that fact that he was genius doesn't make the proof or some fact of the proof validate itself.
"The first step [solving the Riemann Hypothesis] is a first step on a long road, but yes! The first step is the solution to the problem, period. I can retire now." LOL!
To be honest, the actual content here was far too weak to ask anything technical. I think people were generally nervous too - the expectation is this proof would be quite incorrect.
From what I understand, the errors in the proof are understandable to anyone familiar with complex analysis, and many people are angry with HLF for allowing him to give a whole lecture on this before looking over the preprint. Everyone makes mistakes, but most people are given the courtesy of honest review before being thrown up on a live broadcast. I hope he's right for his sake but that no longer seems likely.
To solve the equation 3x + 1, we can find the value of x that makes the equation true. To solve for x, we need to isolate the variable on one side of the equation. Let's start by subtracting 1 from both sides of the equation: 3x + 1 - 1 = 0 This simplifies to: 3x = -1 Now, to isolate x, we divide both sides of the equation by 3: (3x)/3 = (-1)/3 Simplifying further, we get: x = -1/3 So the solution to the equation 3x + 1 = 0 is x = -1/3.
I really like Atiyah. I hope there are no issues with the definition of the Todd function. I will definitely be reading his fine structure constant paper. Fun and interesting lecture!
Just one more request, please make the slide available for free online, so that I can see what was he trying to convey when he was in conference, my happiness overflowed when I heard Hamilton, Ramanujan and ofcourse Euler
It is excellent but if you can expose the larger slides in the video that the Dr. represents, the data that explains the sequence is hardly visible. if they are so kind, thank you. to see in more detail what the Dr. exposes. Thank you.
It can be done other way around; enlarge the PPT slide while put the speakers in the small section (we mainly need to hear him), the current format is not informative.
Mas ganhou ou não??? Se não tem mais o prêmio de 1 milhão, não tem motivo nenhum para começar a estudar matemática. Justo agora q tava animado pra isso.
His infinite iteration function is Euler product of (p-1)/p, which 1st zero of zeta function contain 2nd zero which contain 3rd zero ....to last zero, in physics is ch=2*3.14*gm^2 vacuum energy of Chern-Simons 2 dimensional space on surface of sphere of quantum black hole by gravity,strong, EM force at Planck, proton, atom scale, plus one dimensional time which oscillate between Planck, proton scale produce strong force(2.17*10^-8/(1.67*10^-27))^2=1.69*10^38.
This is how you prove RH in an easy way. We basically add a sixth postulate to Euclid's list which states the following: "Riemann Hypothesis is true". Done, I want my million dollars
He did use zeta(0) = -1/2 != 0 He presumed all the non real zeros are on the critical strip (I think) I think the Todd function thing is only valid for the zeta function or something
@TheNumberZero yeah sure, just said that he uses at least some nontrivial properties of the function, but you are right, he didn't speak about a single zeta function specific property...
@@theocannon8141 well then he did solve it. Like he says riemann is just a happy byproduct of the bigger idea that all analytic functions have real part .5
Would be really nice if we can download the slides. They are beyond unreadable, I'm not an ant. Surely I can recognise Riemann... except it would be hard given the resolution of those tiny nokia-brick-screen sized slides >.>
hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951d?autoStart=false&popout=true At this link, the slides can be viewed at 100%. Small box doesn't help, I'm sure there's a way to download them. Edit: click on swap media elements on the RHS ribbon, slides can be viewed as full!
Great Lecture I've been interested in the solution to "The Riemann Hypothesis" as a path to greater understanding of stuff like the "Fine Structure Constant" and String Theory. Reciprocally Id would expect some discovered greater understanding of the Fine Structure Constant would have implications for RH. What you be said about one of my other favorite subjects Quaternions is also interesting, thanks
drive.google.com/file/d/1WPsVhtBQmdgQl25_evlGQ1mmTQE0Ww4a/view This is the paper referenced where the Todd function was supposedly constructed as stated in his 'proof'.
Riemann hypothesis is not solved till now because arithmetic and algebraic rules of real numbers donot match with complex numbers complex numbers have different rules and we are using algebra of real numbers.
For those looking for the slides: www.dropbox.com/s/jnwtl0m3e64ca5v/rh-slides.pdf (compiled images obtained from the other stream at hitsmediaweb.h-its.org)
I know you all are excited about this Chinese people, but how about not flooding the comment section with '666 sofa.' BTW, what do you all think about this proof?
I'm a Chinese but maybe not an average one. I don't really understand the proof... I'm not even sure if I fully understand RH... More explanation is needed. Apart from that. I think this is big. Whoever has the courage to do the work and stand out to claim it worths respect. If his proof is correct then even more respect. With that said, I don't think this proof will have a big impact in our daily life. I guess most of the people are already taking RH as granted, right? I heard some people say this proof may lead to the destruction of RSA-based encryption, which I guess is BS.
The answer to the Riemann Hypothesis is Infinity. Infinity times infinity equals infinity to the power of infinity. Infinity squared equals infinity to the power of infinity. If 2 is a prime then so is infinity. You are all welcome.
@@arthurb.d.s2841 All numbers are comprised of Primes but not all numbers are comprised of non-Primes. Primes make up the building blocks of infinity. They are telling the other numbers what to do. People are looking at numbers and infinity incorrectly. Infinity is Prime so case closed on the Hypothesis. all the non-zeros have the same point of origin as does infinity so all of them are going to be in the same place just on an endless line. You are never going to find one that doesn’t share this behavior with every other prime.
This video is also available on another stream: hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951d On this side you can choose between the slides and the video (buttons on the right side)
I'm a mathematician but I work on dynamical systems so don't know a lot about this, however I don't find any evident problem with the reasoning, so please can you elaborate a little bit more about why you think is a flawed proof?
The lecture videos are uploaded from our Newsroom and there the viewer can alternate screens between the speaker and presentation. www.newsroom.hlf-foundation.org/newsroom/lectures/video/lecture-the-riemann-hypothesis.html We opt for the main screen to be the presentation but the videos cannot be uploaded without a sidebar.
-e^(3.1415926..*i)=1 is sum of zero of zeta function 1-ll(p-1)/p=1 when it get infinite large,it's vector's sum plus it's imagine function is 2*3.1415926... which appear in fine structure constant 1/137.036=e^2/(4*3.14*(8.85*10^-12)*c*(h/(2*3.14))), if zero of zeta function are not all on line x=1/2 then not equal to 1, result is that it do not have 2*3.14, deduce fine structure constant will not be same as we saw today, this is his connection.
This video is also available on another stream: hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951dplayFrom=13826&autoStart=false&popout=true If you open the link, in the upper right-hand corner you will see a few icons: · Select the middle icon ‘Slide by Slide’ · Then select the last icon - ‘Swap media elements’
We should wait for the review of specialized mathematicians, because this is not the first time a math professor claims that he solved the conjecture. The different thing this time is that Prof. Atiyah is a field medal and Abel prize awarded mathematician. So let's wait and see.. I've heard several mathematicians saying that we still don't have the required math to solve this conjecture but who knows what will happen with this attempt ..
I don't understand this method and maybe somebody can help me with this. As I understand, the proof is about applying the Todd function to the zeta function. The question is, If you apply the Todd function to the prime zeta function or even any Dirichlet series then you also can prove that any of those functions have no zeros in the right half critical strip. Right?! The problem is that those functions have zeros on that strip.
Hello I'm Brazil Riemann's formula all non-prime automatically you find the primes 3+3+3+3+... to infinity and 7+7+7+... to infinity after the perfect squares odd of 9×9.11× 11.13×13... the three
This video is also available on another stream: hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951dplayFrom=13826&autoStart=false&popout=true If you open the link, in the upper right-hand corner you will see a few icons: · Select the middle icon ‘Slide by Slide’ · Then select the last icon - ‘Swap media elements’
Honestly, even if many of us are very fond of Michael, it would be much more productive to be seeing the slides rather than Michael delivering the lecture.
This video is also available on another stream: hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951dplayFrom=13826&autoStart=false&popout=true If you open the link, in the upper right-hand corner you will see a few icons: · Select the middle icon ‘Slide by Slide’ · Then select the last icon - ‘Swap media elements’
R. H isn't true. I can show that by find a general rule for prime number. This rule shows most of the zeros on the critical line are close from the zeros of a new rule and the rest of the zeros for zeta function aren't existed at a new rule. Furthermore, l can find the factorization for any integer number by using the new rule
l have practical method to find prime factors for any integer number. So l can't publish the new rule . But lm ready to show a calculation example to find prime factors for any numbers is consist of 15 digits by using Excel. Also l can spacify any number is prime or not. See this video ua-cam.com/video/toc-9cTM_pQ/v-deo.html
modhar: There is a sub-exponential algorithm for integer factorization, General Number Field Sieve. There is a polynomial-time algorithm for deterministic primality testing as well (AKS Primality test). Therefore, primality testing is not NP-hard, and integer factorization may or may not be. Regardless, your Excel algorithm almost certainly runs in exponential time or a relatively fast-growing sub-exponential time. It's definitely not faster than GNFS and very likely significantly slower than QFS or ECM. 15 digits is tiny. You should be able to factor 60-70 digit numbers in a few seconds with modern efficient techniques.
I used the Excel on the classical computer. But we can track prime factors for lage numbers on quick computer by using a new rule. In computer science, it is not known exactly which complexity classes of integer factorization because there is no proof to show that this problem into Np-complete. But we can show that this problem into Np- complete by the new rule to make a reduction for integer numbers and use the decision answer to identify the 97% of the composite number at straightforward and the rest of this Percentage needs polynomial time. And we can easily track the prime factors for this composite number. This method also leads to show that P=NP.
It seems like RH is not yet proved/ cannot be proved right now, but has anyone tired to prove RH itself is wrong? or it has logical fallacy mathematically?
1:06 Introduction
2:30 Who is Riemann and what is the Riemann Hypothethis
4:28 History of the Zeta Function/Euler Product Formula
7:11 Why is the Hypothethis interesting/difficult
9:09 History of Prime Numbers, Little drivel about Ramanujan, Hardy's Umbrella Problem
14:22 Introduction to Quarternions
17:45 Euler and Complex Numbers
19:28 Tribute to Von Neumann
21:52 Generalization of Eulers formula to the Quarternions (Euler-Hamilton Formula)
24:50 Todd polynomials/function
27:55 Infinite iteration of exponentials
30:21 Connection to the Hypothethis
31:48 Fine Structure Constant (preceeded the claimed proof) and Feynmans Elaboration on it
35:55 His Proof of the Riemann Hypothethis (Proof by contradiction)
39:47 "Where do we go from here?"
42:12 Question Time
43:10 "Have you really solved the problem?" -> Unless you dont believe proof by contradiction, then yes. Generalizations have not been solved.
45:05 "When will your proof will be made available?" -> Fine Structure Constant Paper is available, Riemann is basically the slide.
46:28 "You said people dont believe proofs. How high are the stakes for you?" -> Of course he does care. People will not believe proofs unless they involve new ideas.
48:28 Vague attempts at bribery to find the answer to Hardy's Umbrella Problem
Thank you sir
Thank you!
Thank you for a nice summary.
Gracias!
Thank you very much for this summary
Whether his proof is correct or not, this man is a genius! He's 89 & he remembers his numbers and theorems despite having dementia. His wit is on point. Salute to you Sir for having the courage to attempt the problem nobody less than half your age would have the courage to even comment on. It's not disgrace. This lecture is courage, dream, love, hope and belief personified. Who are we to judge this man? We are all just students of nature (at the very best, we are still not as good as him, far alone being nature's favorite student which he and likes of him are) and we'd be lucky if we were half of his genius, if we could do half of what he did, if nature loved us half of how much it loves him. Kudos Sir, keep rocking and dreaming.
None of us are ever perfectly correct. Any idea, wrong or right, only helps form a better understanding and that's the reason, the backbone, the thrill that truly curious minds live for. This lecture is an inspiration. Thank you Sir. Amen.
Rest In Peace Michael Atiyah. A friend of mine spoke to him in December two weeks before his death. He had just sent the manuscript of his final proof to several leading mathematicians. My logical side tells me that it can't be right. My heart however keeps hoping!
Why is the video of him so big, and the slides so small? Should be the other way round!
Exactly.
Christopher Purcell they don't want you to see 🤣🤣🤣
perfect, thanks, the same we suggest.
The man is in his 90s.
Here is his paper.
drive.google.com/file/d/17NBICP6OcUSucrXKNWvzLmrQpfUrEKuY/view
@@randomrant3886 the man didn't shoot the video not uploaded it to UA-cam 😂 you're silly
he is 89. why can't we let it slide if he's wrong and celebrate if he's correct.
I am almost done with my own version of RH proof. Just checking the calculations. If only those damn margins are a little bit wider...
This video is also available on another stream:
hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951d?autoStart=false&popout=true
Keep it up mate do wonders👏💪
fermat
What are these, slides for ants?
No bacteria
you need laser vision to appreciate maths???
It would be great if there was a way to download the slides. When lectures are being recorded I could careless about looking at the speaker. The slides should be the larger screen.
if you enter the link below, you can zoom into it
Click to "Swap Media Elements" in the following link:
hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951d
Why are the slides so big, I want to see his face too!
Yes, he's completely wrong (according to most credible mathematicians) but I admire his tenacity. He's still trying to make an impact. Still trying to ignite minds. This is not someone who should be mocked. It is someone who should be revered. He may not be the mathematician he once was (that's an understatement) but he's still fairly articulate and I'm sure that he is still capable of being a great ambassador for math.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
- Teddy Roosevelt
Love how hypocrites who use TR's quote NEVER apply it to powerless political groups in every nation on earth, fighting & struggling, killing people if necessary, to make the world be more fair & just in their view.
Credible Mathematicians? Who for instance?
Surely not Lubos Motl!
Those idiots over there don't even know why the C is adjuncted to ZF!
The lecture slides are so small in the video they're unreadable. Please put the slides in the description. Thanks.
@ -
Here is the paper. I agree that is too small.
drive.google.com/file/d/17NBICP6OcUSucrXKNWvzLmrQpfUrEKuY/view
ua-cam.com/video/oe4Jo4i3w_w/v-deo.html
The Ultimate Reductionist Much better
Please someone put the subtitles in this video, thank you
At first I couldn't understand him at all, but eventually (after ~10 mins) I got somewhat used to his accent. Still, subtitles would be nice
Play the video at speed 2x
The viewer is supposed to be able to toggle between a close-up view of the speaker or of the slides. You should only have to click on the view that you prefer. It does not seem to work here on youtube.
Here's the good upload ua-cam.com/video/oe4Jo4i3w_w/v-deo.html
For all of you looking for a version where you can actually read the slides, you can watch it on the HLF website: www.heidelberg-laureate-forum.org/blog/video/lecture-monday-september-24-2018-sir-michael-francis-atiyah/ and click the symbol in the top right hand corner that says 'Swap Media Elements'.
another victim of prime number.
The slides are for Ant-Man.
This video is also available on another stream:
hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951d?autoStart=false&popout=true
If you open the link, in the upper right-hand corner you will see a few icons (see screenshot attached):
· Select the middle icon ‘Slide by Slide’
· Then select the last icon - ‘Swap media elements’
Rest in peace, Sir Michael Atiyah. He was the best of the best.
*drops a RH proof*
- Any questions?
...
- Well... how do you feel about that?
Shall be a step of the history, or just a dementia's coffin.
Rest In Peace Michael Francis Atiyah.
i think, he should have spent less time on history and more on explaining what this mysterious todd function is and what the stuff about iterating exponentials is about. when i iterate exponentials, it either diverges to infinity (for x > 1) or converges to 1 (for x < 1)......but maybe this works only with quaternions? ...no idea. i'm just baffled but i surely hope, the proof holds up
This is a seminar for laymen, not mathematically trained people.
Only if you iterate using the same number. Same thing for addition and multiplication, right?
aahh...yes! of course!
Enjoy: drive.google.com/file/d/17NBICP6OcUSucrXKNWvzLmrQpfUrEKuY/view
I think that for iterating exponential he means for example x^(x^(x^(x^(...)))). In this case the function is convergent for x greater than 0 and less than e^(1/e), at least on the real line. Maybe there exist a complex extension of the function
I will solve The Riemann Hypothesis.Atiyah, your sprit of mathematics is inherited to me.
R H isn't true. I can show that by using a general rule for prime numbers.
@@isaacm.3535. Yes, I can show most of zeros for zeta function are existing but the rest of zeroes not exist on critical line . You can see this fact by using a general rule for prime numbers
You're forgetting that RH talks about NON-TRIVIAL zeros, so reread Isaac Newtons question
@@holofech9744 I know that. There is existing a relation between the distribution of prime numbers with non trivial zeroes of the Zeta function .I can shwo that.
تحية للأستاذ عطية!. تحية من موريتانيا
Greetings for you from mauritania!
Atiyah is a legend!.
this proof isn't correct, unfortunately.
At Mauritania 🇲🇷 u have university?
Reminds me the proof of Goldbach conjecture by Uncle Petros. RIP
He appealed to authority wayy too blatantly, it makes his arguements and talk feel like a sham. Yes von Neumann was a genius, but that fact that he was genius doesn't make the proof or some fact of the proof validate itself.
GREAT JOB ON MAKING THE SLIDE SO SMALL
haha that was a joke
*If you can't read the slides. Click on the link in the description to pick which part to see. You tube can't do that yet.*
"The first step [solving the Riemann Hypothesis] is a first step on a long road, but yes! The first step is the solution to the problem, period. I can retire now." LOL!
I was expecting the audiences to ask some techinical questions, not these dumb questions LOL
To be honest, the actual content here was far too weak to ask anything technical. I think people were generally nervous too - the expectation is this proof would be quite incorrect.
A good mathematician asks a lot of questions, no matter how "dumb" one may think they are.
what the hell are these “666 sofa” comments about
chinese internet popular way of saying: well done, i am amongst the first ones to comment.
so 666, sofa!
OK let's go then
777 couch
Hahaha. 6, sounds like a Chinese word that means "smooth sail". Thus 666, the more the better. Sofa means "front seat".
thank you!
Ha, chinese internet subculture, meaning some of the first ones to say it seems great
Alright I'm in for a 50 minute rollercoaster ride
I'm hoping that he's right
Lil Buninio I am hoping he leaves the million dollar prize for me☺️😅
he is wrong I read the paper and I found a couple of mistakes...
@Mathedidasko
Just imagine how fucking delusional he must be, if a random guy on the internet "found a couple mistake" in the paper.
Maybe you're wrong and he's so smart that you cannot understand his ideas:)
From what I understand, the errors in the proof are understandable to anyone familiar with complex analysis, and many people are angry with HLF for allowing him to give a whole lecture on this before looking over the preprint. Everyone makes mistakes, but most people are given the courtesy of honest review before being thrown up on a live broadcast. I hope he's right for his sake but that no longer seems likely.
To solve the equation 3x + 1, we can find the value of x that makes the equation true.
To solve for x, we need to isolate the variable on one side of the equation.
Let's start by subtracting 1 from both sides of the equation:
3x + 1 - 1 = 0
This simplifies to:
3x = -1
Now, to isolate x, we divide both sides of the equation by 3:
(3x)/3 = (-1)/3
Simplifying further, we get:
x = -1/3
So the solution to the equation 3x + 1 = 0 is x = -1/3.
I really like Atiyah. I hope there are no issues with the definition of the Todd function. I will definitely be reading his fine structure constant paper. Fun and interesting lecture!
have you read it? it's rubbish and crackpoty. He gone senile, there's nothing wrong in that - except for HLF to exploit the poor old man.
@@Czeckie Ya I just read it yesterday :(
Just one more request, please make the slide available for free online, so that I can see what was he trying to convey when he was in conference, my happiness overflowed when I heard Hamilton, Ramanujan and ofcourse Euler
You can read the paper here:drive.google.com/file/d/17NBICP6OcUSucrXKNWvzLmrQpfUrEKuY/view
It is excellent but if you can expose the larger slides in the video that the Dr. represents, the data that explains the sequence is hardly visible. if they are so kind, thank you. to see in more detail what the Dr. exposes. Thank you.
This video is also available on another stream:
hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951d?autoStart=false&popout=true
不管怎么样，这老头儿引发了我们普通人对数学的热情，虽然只是吃瓜群众但还是很有意义的
It can be done other way around; enlarge the PPT slide while put the speakers in the small section (we mainly need to hear him), the current format is not informative.
Mas ganhou ou não???
Se não tem mais o prêmio de 1 milhão, não tem motivo nenhum para começar a estudar matemática.
Justo agora q tava animado pra isso.
PPT里的内容太小了，看不清啊
His infinite iteration function is Euler product of (p-1)/p, which 1st zero of zeta function contain 2nd zero which contain 3rd zero ....to last zero, in physics is ch=2*3.14*gm^2 vacuum energy of Chern-Simons 2 dimensional space on surface of sphere of quantum black hole by gravity,strong, EM force at Planck, proton, atom scale, plus one dimensional time which oscillate between Planck, proton scale produce strong force(2.17*10^-8/(1.67*10^-27))^2=1.69*10^38.
Interesting. But how exactly do you arrive to that conclusion?
from realization of sieve of Eratosthenes prove Riemann hypothesis, vacuum energy ch, detail on google search.
This is how you prove RH in an easy way. We basically add a sixth postulate to Euclid's list which states the following: "Riemann Hypothesis is true".
Done, I want my million dollars
In the proof, it doesn't seem to me that he used any of the Zeta function's properties!! UH OH!!
He did use zeta(0) = -1/2 != 0
He presumed all the non real zeros are on the critical strip (I think)
I think the Todd function thing is only valid for the zeta function or something
He used the fact the zeta function is analytic which itself is pretty strong property (infinitely differentiable, easily approximable on small areas)
@TheNumberZero yeah sure, just said that he uses at least some nontrivial properties of the function, but you are right, he didn't speak about a single zeta function specific property...
@@theocannon8141 well then he did solve it. Like he says riemann is just a happy byproduct of the bigger idea that all analytic functions have real part .5
The PC he uses is FMV!!
I’m very surprised with that.
Would be really nice if we can download the slides. They are beyond unreadable, I'm not an ant.
Surely I can recognise Riemann... except it would be hard given the resolution of those tiny nokia-brick-screen sized slides >.>
hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951d?autoStart=false&popout=true
At this link, the slides can be viewed at 100%. Small box doesn't help, I'm sure there's a way to download them.
Edit: click on swap media elements on the RHS ribbon, slides can be viewed as full!
It's very simple! What do you think?
I think the complexities arise when defining the Todd function.
May Sir Atiyah rest in peace.
Where is gauss the teacher of riemann
Great Lecture
I've been interested in the solution to "The Riemann Hypothesis" as a path to greater understanding of stuff like the "Fine Structure Constant" and String Theory.
Reciprocally Id would expect some discovered greater understanding of the Fine Structure Constant would have implications for RH.
What you be said about one of my other favorite subjects Quaternions is also interesting, thanks
With all due respect to his earlier work, but now i know the feeling of having grandpa...
Utter waste of time by talking about irrelevant things.
it is not easy for a man nearly 90 to stand so long to give a lecture for us.
Whether he's right or wrong its surely remarkable that an 89 year old has the ability to even attempt this.
'The proof is in the pudding'
I don't get it.
If his proof is incorrect, at least, it is puting the Riemann Hipoteses in highlights.
Does anyone have his powerpoint slides?
F(2s) = 2F(s) is homogeneous of degree 1, not 2.
What?
I just looked at the paper, I see it was a typo.
Then the proof is already wrong
He didn't know what the RH was?? Kidding me???
anyone please tell me the name of movie he is talking about...
more info regarding the Todd function please?
drive.google.com/file/d/1WPsVhtBQmdgQl25_evlGQ1mmTQE0Ww4a/view
This is the paper referenced where the Todd function was supposedly constructed as stated in his 'proof'.
thanks
Don't you think that ratio of slide screen size should be switch with camera? Jesus...
Firsly the great greek mathematician Fokas solves the Lindelhof hypothesis and now this!
Riemann hypothesis is not solved till now because arithmetic and algebraic rules of real numbers donot match with complex numbers complex numbers have different rules and we are using algebra of real numbers.
RIP. Even though you did not succeed the very last time.
Do we have anh updates on this? Is his proof ok?
Thanks for sharing~
But the slides are too small..
I can't read the slides. I can't understand is this even worth time. What am I doing here?
Roots are S = 0 +- i(2pik- pi)/ lnP^2^n , P is prime
what is "pik" ?
@@helgbrzegowski4380 pi is 3.14....
For those looking for the slides: www.dropbox.com/s/jnwtl0m3e64ca5v/rh-slides.pdf
(compiled images obtained from the other stream at hitsmediaweb.h-its.org)
I know you all are excited about this Chinese people, but how about not flooding the comment section with '666 sofa.' BTW, what do you all think about this proof?
hello world
In China when you get to places early, you get to sit on a sofa... 666 means "fucking yay!"
I'm a Chinese but maybe not an average one. I don't really understand the proof... I'm not even sure if I fully understand RH... More explanation is needed.
Apart from that. I think this is big. Whoever has the courage to do the work and stand out to claim it worths respect. If his proof is correct then even more respect.
With that said, I don't think this proof will have a big impact in our daily life. I guess most of the people are already taking RH as granted, right?
I heard some people say this proof may lead to the destruction of RSA-based encryption, which I guess is BS.
So a big bunch of chinese were blended here like us? wow
@Tudor Șarpe That's great info. Thanks so much. I became very interested in encryption recently.
@源无 Like who? I see u have an ID of 2 Chinese chars.
I think, his рroof of Riemann conjecture is apparently wrong. But I hope, that instead - my opinion is wrong )
what is the euler hamilton formula?
www.google.com/amp/s/www.geeksforgeeks.org/mathematics-euler-hamiltonian-paths/amp/
Not sure if this is the correct reference. I think those are related to graph theory rather than quaternions...
Arun Jayapal yep, that link is wrong, this is closer math.stackexchange.com/questions/41574/can-eulers-identity-be-extended-to-quaternions
Why are u guys all complaining about Chinese people, when there are even more Korean comments?
The answer to the Riemann Hypothesis is Infinity.
Infinity times infinity equals infinity to the power of infinity.
Infinity squared equals infinity to the power of infinity.
If 2 is a prime then so is infinity.
You are all welcome.
?
@@arthurb.d.s2841 All numbers are comprised of Primes but not all numbers are comprised of non-Primes. Primes make up the building blocks of infinity. They are telling the other numbers what to do. People are looking at numbers and infinity incorrectly. Infinity is Prime so case closed on the Hypothesis.
all the non-zeros have the same point of origin as does infinity so all of them are going to be in the same place just on an endless line. You are never going to find one that doesn’t share this behavior with every other prime.
This video is also available on another stream:
hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951d
On this side you can choose between the slides and the video (buttons on the right side)
I solved riemann hypithesis
Bruh you can't even spell it properly cm'on...
thank god that's the easy solution. money is still on the table.
Is there any chance to get Sir Michael F. Atiyah's Presentation?
A youtube link to the slides
ua-cam.com/video/oe4Jo4i3w_w/v-deo.html
官方网站链接，看的比较清楚www.heidelberg-laureate-forum.org/blog/video/lecture-monday-september-24-2018-sir-michael-francis-atiyah
So exciting!
his accent reminds me of my computer architecture class instructor
"simple proof"
actually it's really simple, taking into account that this is one of the most difficult problems that exists
Too simple. As in it doesn't work, unfortunately.
I'm a mathematician but I work on dynamical systems so don't know a lot about this, however I don't find any evident problem with the reasoning, so please can you elaborate a little bit more about why you think is a flawed proof?
xxxpirlo check the details about the Todd function. There are things to clarify there. I do not think the proof works.
Where can I check them please ?
do we really need the side bar on the video...?
The lecture videos are uploaded from our Newsroom and there the viewer can alternate screens between the speaker and presentation.
www.newsroom.hlf-foundation.org/newsroom/lectures/video/lecture-the-riemann-hypothesis.html
We opt for the main screen to be the presentation but the videos cannot be uploaded without a sidebar.
-e^(3.1415926..*i)=1 is sum of zero of zeta function 1-ll(p-1)/p=1 when it get infinite large,it's vector's sum plus it's imagine function is 2*3.1415926... which appear in fine structure constant 1/137.036=e^2/(4*3.14*(8.85*10^-12)*c*(h/(2*3.14))), if zero of zeta function are not all on line x=1/2 then not equal to 1, result is that it do not have 2*3.14, deduce fine structure constant will not be same as we saw today, this is his connection.
有幸见证这个时刻！
没错
Andrew Macvoy Vincent 他的证明很可能是错的，只是大家不忍心指出他的错误
Yu Li 不见得是错的，只是他的todd函数还未被证实而已，它的定义还比较模糊。若有朝一日todd被其它数学家们认可了，那么他就证明成功了。
前排围观
源无 我个人对此不乐观
The slides need to be at least 2 times the size
This video is also available on another stream:
hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951dplayFrom=13826&autoStart=false&popout=true
If you open the link, in the upper right-hand corner you will see a few icons:
· Select the middle icon ‘Slide by Slide’
· Then select the last icon - ‘Swap media elements’
Todd ALL the things!
Where can we find the paper ?
drive.google.com/file/d/17NBICP6OcUSucrXKNWvzLmrQpfUrEKuY/view
you can find the paper here
@@mounirbensalem5692
اشكرك صديقي
بس هل تعتقد ان حله صحيح اعتقد ان هنالك حلقه مفقوده
We should wait for the review of specialized mathematicians, because this is not the first time a math professor claims that he solved the conjecture. The different thing this time is that Prof. Atiyah is a field medal and Abel prize awarded mathematician. So let's wait and see.. I've heard several mathematicians saying that we still don't have the required math to solve this conjecture but who knows what will happen with this attempt ..
@@mounirbensalem5692
Thank a lot
I don't understand this method and maybe somebody can help me with this.
As I understand, the proof is about applying the Todd function to the zeta function. The question is, If you apply the Todd function to the prime zeta function or even any Dirichlet series then you also can prove that any of those functions have no zeros in the right half critical strip. Right?! The problem is that those functions have zeros on that strip.
Hugo Pereira yes, that’s one of the flaws with this proof.
Damn you smart people
If you find a new rule for prime numbers than you can see 83% of zeroes for zeta function are true. So RH isn't true.
You tried Michael Atiyah
you are the reason my wife left
very elegant
Hello I'm Brazil Riemann's formula all non-prime automatically you find the primes 3+3+3+3+... to infinity and 7+7+7+... to infinity after the perfect squares odd of 9×9.11× 11.13×13... the three
The lecture slides.. literally the most important thing in the lecture are way too small..
This video is also available on another stream:
hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951dplayFrom=13826&autoStart=false&popout=true
If you open the link, in the upper right-hand corner you will see a few icons:
· Select the middle icon ‘Slide by Slide’
· Then select the last icon - ‘Swap media elements’
Honestly, even if many of us are very fond of Michael, it would be much more productive to be seeing the slides rather than Michael delivering the lecture.
This video is also available on another stream:
hitsmediaweb.h-its.org/Mediasite/Play/35600dda1dec419cb4e99f706197a3951dplayFrom=13826&autoStart=false&popout=true
If you open the link, in the upper right-hand corner you will see a few icons:
· Select the middle icon ‘Slide by Slide’
· Then select the last icon - ‘Swap media elements’
R. H isn't true. I can show that by find a general rule for prime number. This rule shows most of the zeros on the critical line are close from the zeros of a new rule and the rest of the zeros for zeta function aren't existed at a new rule. Furthermore, l can find the factorization for any integer number by using the new rule
OK show us
l have practical method to find prime factors for any integer number. So l can't publish the new rule . But lm ready to show a calculation example to find prime factors for any numbers is consist of 15 digits by using Excel. Also l can spacify any number is prime or not. See this video
ua-cam.com/video/toc-9cTM_pQ/v-deo.html
modhar: There is a sub-exponential algorithm for integer factorization, General Number Field Sieve. There is a polynomial-time algorithm for deterministic primality testing as well (AKS Primality test). Therefore, primality testing is not NP-hard, and integer factorization may or may not be. Regardless, your Excel algorithm almost certainly runs in exponential time or a relatively fast-growing sub-exponential time. It's definitely not faster than GNFS and very likely significantly slower than QFS or ECM.
15 digits is tiny. You should be able to factor 60-70 digit numbers in a few seconds with modern efficient techniques.
I used the Excel on the classical computer. But we can track prime factors for lage numbers on quick computer by using a new rule. In computer science, it is not known exactly which complexity classes of integer factorization because
there is no proof to show that this problem into Np-complete. But we can show that this problem into Np-
complete by the new rule to make a reduction for integer numbers and use the decision answer to identify
the 97% of the composite number at straightforward and the rest of this Percentage needs polynomial time. And we can easily track the prime factors for this composite
number. This method also leads to show that P=NP.
성지순례~
You NEED to re-release this and replace the two screens. The slides are so important!!!
Please?
"Nobody in the front."
Sorry atiyah and Wiles
It seems like RH is not yet proved/ cannot be proved right now, but has anyone tired to prove RH itself is wrong? or it has logical fallacy mathematically?
They try everything, proving it, disproving it, but we only found some complex numbers which come pretty close, ζ(1/2+14.1347i) for example.
Proving wrong is “easy”，just need an example XD.
Finally !!