Riemann Hypothesis disproof #296

The Riemann Hypothesis is one of the most important unsolved problems in mathematics, and even has a million-dollar prize attached.

Every year or so someone comes out with a new proof or disproof of the Hypothesis. Every one of these has either a.) contained a flaw located and pointed out, b.) been so outrageous it was pointedly ignored or c.) is still being checked but nobody makes much of it. Matthew Watkins has a webpage for keeping track of these. Some proofs are even made for humor (although sometimes the humor of mathematicians is on the middle-of-the-Sahara dry side).

In March of 2007 a mathematician in India named Tribikram Pati came out with a new disproof (so he thought the hypothesis was false). Unfortunately, like so many other papers of the same type, there was a flaw.

Even though it’s a simpler than many modern proofs, most of the proof is too much for high school students (sorry guys!) But here’s the end of Pati’s proof:

End of Tribikram Pati’s proof

(For my students, and others who want to jog their memory of logarithm properties) Why is the last equation “obviously false”?

(In general) Does anyone have a copy of the debunking PDF? It looks like archive.org has one but I haven’t been able to get at it.


3 Responses

  1. What about Arne Bergstrom’s supposed proof at http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.5120? Has anyone checked it yet?

  2. The last line would imply that a number is less than itself!

    • What are you talking about? State the page and the line to which you are referring, and explain your claim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: