arXiv's links to viXra. Can beauty prove Riemann Hypothesis and God?

[questfortruth]

There is proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, which is completely logical:
The probability of Riemann's hypothesis being true is equal to 1
However, it is unpublished in a journal and not accepted by Science: they do not like this proof.

Thus, it is not enough, that arXiv's proof is logical, it is needed to be beautiful (elegant) as well.

But who can decide over elegancy? The perfect Judge over the feeling of beauty would be God of Beauty.

Look up the citations of the above arXiv paper (the list of citations accompanies the arXiv paper): it is D. Martila's even more elegant proof.
Hereby it is the great victory of the viXra! Because the most elite scientific website "arXiv" provides links to the Martila's viXra papers.

Under elegancy was meant beauty.
The arXiv proof is completely logical, there is no known refutation.
Why the prize is not released?
Because it is not beautiful enough.

Under beauty, I meant the following: the people must like arXiv proof. The fact, that it is logical is not enough. Somebody must like proof.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe that trying to prove the invisible God's existence is cousin to idolatry. Whomsoever does the proving gets to be God's spokesperson, and that's what I am talking about.

 

[robocop (actually)]

A very religious arxiv articleis here:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.6739.pdf

 

[blü 2]

There is proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, which is completely logical:
The probability of Riemann's hypothesis being true is equal to 1
However, it is unpublished in a journal and not accepted by Science: they do not like this proof.

I think you'll find that any mathematically sound demonstration of the Riemann Hypothesis will get you a Field Medal and a big-bucks prize.

Elegance is not essential, as the solution to the four-body problem shows.

Give us a brief statement of what the demonstration you speak of actually says, and how what it says necessarily determines the correctness of the Riemann Hypothesis.

 

[Bear Wild]

A very religious arxiv articleis here:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.6739.pdf

Did you understand this article? The authors seemed confused.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Did you understand this article? The authors seemed confused.

I don't understand all of it no, but I do understand some of the amazing things about DNA.

 

[questfortruth]

I think you'll find that any mathematically sound demonstration of the Riemann Hypothesis will get you a Field Medal and a big-bucks prize.

Elegance is not essential, as the solution to the four-body problem shows.

Give us a brief statement of what the demonstration you speak of actually says, and how what it says necessarily determines the correctness of the Riemann Hypothesis.

Under elegancy was meant beauty.
The arXiv proof is completely logical, there is no known refutation.
Why the prize is not released?
Because it is not beautiful enough.

 

[alsome]

As far as I can see, that's a lot work put out to prove that we're human ! Or did I miss the point !

 

[questfortruth]

As far as I can see, that's a lot work put out to prove that we're human ! Or did I miss the point !

Are we humans?
Or are we dancers?

(YouTube song)

 

[blü 2]

Under elegancy was meant beauty.
The arXiv proof is completely logical, there is no known refutation.
Why the prize is not released?
Because it is not beautiful enough.

No, as I pointed out to you, the award-winning solution to the four-color problem is not elegant, not beautiful. It's endless pages of computer printout for particular cases of the problem until all cases have been accounted for. The applause was for the fact it was a good solution.

So my suspicion is that bad maths is the problem, not lack of elegance.

If you disagree, describe the new mathematical insight about the Riemann hypothesis and why it works.

 

[questfortruth]

No, as I pointed out to you, the award-winning solution to the four-color problem is not elegant, not beautiful. It's endless pages of computer printout for particular cases of the problem until all cases have been accounted for. The applause was for the fact it was a good solution.

So my suspicion is that bad maths is the problem, not lack of elegance.

If you disagree, describe the new mathematical insight about the Riemann hypothesis and why it works.

Under beauty, I meant the following: the people must like arXiv proof. The fact, that it is logical is not enough. Somebody must like proof.

 

[blü 2]

Under beauty, I meant the following: the people must like arXiv proof. The fact, that it is logical is not enough. Somebody must like proof.

How can you assert it's correct when you can't even tell me what it says, let alone why it's correct?

 

[joelr]

There is proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, which is completely logical:
The probability of Riemann's hypothesis being true is equal to 1
However, it is unpublished in a journal and not accepted by Science: they do not like this proof.

Thus, it is not enough, that arXiv's proof is logical, it is needed to be beautiful (elegant) as well.

No it doesn't need to be beautiful it needs to say weather the non-trivial zeros are all on the real line at 1/2.
Are they or are they not? What does "being true is equal to 1" mean?

The odds of me being a mutant is equal to 1. One what? 1 out of 10? What the hell does that mean?
The RH question is if the non-trivial zeros all lie (to infinity) on the real number line at 1/2. We know many billions do but we need to know if they stay there to infinity.

On a number graph, up in the complex plane you can take imaginary numbers and run them through the Riemann zeta function and at certain locations you get these zeros. They all seem to line up at 1/2 and move upwards into the complex direction but they stay within 1/2. So they form this line going up from 1/2 into the complex plane to infinity. That's sort of the general idea. We need to know if it's true because then we can use the RH to understand many other problems including unlock some mysteries to prime numbers.
The actual hypothesis is that all zeros (non-trivial) line up at 1/2. It's a yes or no plus proof.
There are other zeros found in the complex plane that are trivial and are not part of the hypothesis.
There is a way to distinguish between the two but it's not important.

Mathematics solutions are not in probabilities. But the solution has to show, with math, that it's true or false or it's not a solution.