Indian Mathematician Takes Shot At Proving Riemann Hypothesis 160
First time accepted submitter jalfreize writes "Indian Mathematician Rohit Gupta (known by the moniker @fadesingh on twitter) has announced an online workshop which he intends to 'conclude by attacking an important problem in front of (the participants), in public view.' The problem is the Riemann Hypothesis, first proposed in 1859. Rohit outlines his approach based on quasicrystals first outlined by Freeman Dyson. His audacious plan, coupled with this recent news about quasicrystals, has kicked up a storm of interest in the Indian twitterverse."
Indians (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Ramanujan.
He had help: (Score:3)
Ramanujan said the goddess Lakshmi read the answers to him out of a book.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:He had help: (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sure he was joking around when he said it.
(Just like I was joking around when posting that. But just to reassure you, Ramanujan was one of the greats of mathematics. And there is a long tradition of great Indian scientists doing mathematics going back centuries BC. My personal fave Indian scientist is J. C. Bose who was working wtih 60 Ghz radio waves in the late 1800s.)
Re: (Score:2)
Bose also invented wireless signaling before Marconi [wikipedia.org], he however chose not to patent it.
Re: (Score:2)
Since Lakshmi is an Indian goddess, the poster is correct. Ramanujan DID say an Indian can do maths. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Ha! See? Ramanujan was cheating!
Copying answers from Lakshimi... MY professors would DEFINITELY take points off the curve for that.
Re:He had help: (Score:4, Funny)
Why, he cited his sources, didn't he?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd heard Lakshmi, but looking it up, it apparently was Namagiri, his family's goddess.
Re: (Score:2)
If we're not sure it's Saraswathi, how will we ever be sure??
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Belldandy would be my first choice, but Lakshmi would be pretty cool as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Cmon mods, this post has got to hit +5, Troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oi! I'm Scottish and I resent the implication that we didn't invent it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oi! I'm Scottish and I resent the implication that we didn't invent it.
Surely DEEP-FRIED MARS BAR tikka masala?
$39.99 on pay per view (Score:3)
Hot proof action! In public!
Re: (Score:2)
For you very very special price. Because I am liking your face sir.
Oh boy (Score:1, Redundant)
I'll be watching the number of racist comments and unfunny "curry" comments on this thread with great interest.
Re: (Score:1)
starting off with the first hint of such with your very own post too! very clever
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, Funny)
And the mods would like to have a little chaat with him.
Re:Oh boy (Score:4, Funny)
We won't be having naan of this around here!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No more pun jabs please.
Curry has little to do with this (Score:3, Funny)
He will talk about quasicrystals and the Riemann hypothesis, not lambda calculus. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As an American-born Asian Indian, I know the pain of real racism. But a lot of what people like you consider to be "racism" has absolutely nothing to do with actual racism, and in fact has nothing to do with race at all!
It's understandable why many people in Western nations have a bad opinion of Indians, especially when technology or science is involved. No, English-speaking Americans won't be happy at all when they call some tech support line, trying to get help with a critical problem, only to have some g
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh boy (Score:4, Interesting)
That's sure not my experience with Indians. So what if someone on a call center doesn't know jack? Most of them here in the US don't either.
The Indian students here at the university I work at have always been excellent and fun to work with. (My fave joke from one of them: "The British gave us bureaucracy. But we PERFECTED it.")
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair people can't be blamed for having that viewpoint though, as it's one that's been as much cultivated as a result of ignorance as it has Indian government and companies themselves.
The issue is that when India was making it's drive for companies to use it's outsourced call centres it's government and companies were making the case that all the staff in them were well trained highly skilled graduates. When customers get on the phone to them however it was not just an issue of language barriers, it wa
Re: (Score:2)
Sometime in 1989 or very early 1990, I called Samna for help with their Ami Pro product. I believe it was bundled with a runtime of Windows 2.something. I was calling from Poland, no less, and, perhaps surprisingly, I had a legally obtained boxed product (smuggled from abroad). Not only did they agree with my bug report, but in about two weeks I've received a set of floppies with an updated version that had the bug fixed!! I will never forget that experience. I wish they weren't acquired and could independe
Re: (Score:2)
"legally obtained boxed product (smuggled) from abroad"??!!!
Perhaps it's not only the Indians who have trouble with English.
Re: (Score:2)
It was legally obtained in the sense of copyright law. The "smuggling" was perhaps a misused figure of speech. It ceased to apply in mid-89 :) I do have a bunch of machines that were truly smuggled in spite of COCOM embargo etc, though :)
Re: (Score:2)
It may not have been available in Poland, or even Europe. Lots of technology items were like that in those days.
Used to be commonplace with console games - small businesses could buy them abroad and sell them locally (known as "grey imports"). Bought legally, paid all the taxes, but sold against the marketing strategy of the company. If you had a relative who just happened to be going on holiday to the USA/Canada/Japan, you could usually bribe them to bring some things back for you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's was just a joke. Having been in the IT industry for a long time and having many friends and colleagues from Eastern Europe, I know how things used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I worked at RSA Security for several years, during the period in which they outsourced several of their minor products (e.g., ClearTrust) to HCL Enterprises. I worked directly with their teams on occasion, and they were fast and correct. It wasn't particularly cheap, though likely somewhat cheaper than a North American dev center.
Re: (Score:2)
i hear british people on the BBC (Score:2)
and i have no idea what the hell they are saying. wicked smash innit? thems Cockney barrow boy spivs theyis!
but i can understand almost any Indian i hear speaking English.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence 'race' doesn't exist. Well, only in the mind of the beholder. You could be stepping on some unknown sore bit of mine and I could call you racist. Or I could be clear and tell you not to do that specific thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Race doesn't exist in the same sense as subspecies doesn't exist. In other words, it exists. And "racism" isn't about recognising the existence of race, it's about making unwarranted assumptions based on race. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that race doesn't exist is playing into the hands of the racists because it leaves them unchallenged (claiming that race doesn't exist is so ridiculous that it's no challenge to them). Yes, it's a human construct with fuzzy boundaries, but that doesn't mea
Re: (Score:2)
Subspecies is a biological discriminant for different populations of a species that could mate, but in practice, don't. Mating, in many species, is a process that involves exactly the right place, colours, odours, rituals and whatnot. This is a condition that humans don't suffer: we stick it in anything that moves. Your argument would hold up if there were no Lenny Kravitzes or, for that matter, me. Hence, race does not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Subspecies is a biological discriminant for different populations of a species that could mate, but in practice, don't. Mating, in many species, is a process that involves exactly the right place, colours, odours, rituals and whatnot. This is a condition that humans don't suffer: we stick it in anything that moves. Your argument would hold up if there were no Lenny Kravitzes or, for that matter, me. Hence, race does not exist.
Your argument would hold up if a) there were no mules, and b) it wasn't a non sequitur anyway. Perhaps you missed the rest of my posting, the bit about social constructs being real?
Re: (Score:2)
No, mules are not a subspecies; they cannot procreate - their parents have different amounts of chromosomes even. Admittedly, in biology, the differences between species and inter-species are not a hard line, but in some cases rather blurry, but my point stands: 'subspecies' and 'race' don't compare (which, I think, was your point). So don't muddle the argument with mules.
'Race' is a commercial qualifier in the industry of breeding cats, dogs and horses. 'Subspecies' has a (scientific) definition as I outli
Re: (Score:2)
"Perhaps you missed the rest of my posting, the bit about social constructs being real?"
You're right. I missed that. But then, that would be your *only* point (because your biology points don't stick very well).
Well, I've got to say, it *is* a point. But my question with regards to this point is always: what consequences does the 'race as a social construct' carry ? Wherein lies what we accept ? I mean, it used to be that you couldn't say or do nasty things about or to people who weren't 'white'. But you ca
Re: (Score:2)
"Perhaps you missed the rest of my posting, the bit about social constructs being real?"
You're right. I missed that. But then, that would be your *only* point (because your biology points don't stick very well).
Well, I've got to say, it *is* a point. But my question with regards to this point is always: what consequences does the 'race as a social construct' carry ? Wherein lies what we accept ? I mean, it used to be that you couldn't say or do nasty things about or to people who weren't 'white'. But you can't make laws like that anymore - there's all these people producing all these children that are of questionable origin after all - we don't control the breeding anymore ! So, we have to be more clear, dare I say it - more *scientific* about it.
Well darn - there is no scientifically acceptable definition of 'race' !
I mean, if 'race' is a social construct, can I then 'black' on mondays only and white on the others ? It works for religion. And are redheads a race ? Is Obama white ? And if not, why not ? And if it is not about self-identification, but only about the identification of others, is it bad if I call someone who identifies as black, white ? And if it is about treatment of other people based on 'racial characteristics', then what are they ? Colour ? Size of nose ? Is there a chart for that ?
How ridiculous would it be if there were a chart for that ?
The point is that people do discriminate on a set of physical and social characteristics that they constrict as "race", which means that race exists. The fact that it is hard to define the boundaries is irrelevant -- that's a form of the sorites fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that people do discriminate on a set of physical and social characteristics that they constrict as "race", which means that race exists.
Except neither those characteristics can be defined, nor the maliciousness proved. Which makes it arbitrary, and therefore rather useless. Except that there are laws for it, which makes it scary. Because arbitrary laws are scary.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that people do discriminate on a set of physical and social characteristics that they constrict as "race", which means that race exists.
Except neither those characteristics can be defined, nor the maliciousness proved. Which makes it arbitrary, and therefore rather useless. Except that there are laws for it, which makes it scary. Because arbitrary laws are scary.
You seem to have a naive view of definition. I take it you are aware of the sorites fallacy (aka the paradox of the beard) which shows that it's impossible (or arbitrary) to define whether somebody has a beard or not? But it's ridiculous to tell somebody that they can't say Richard Stallman has a beard because the concept isn't well enough defined.
Oh, and when my wife's manager put in writing that he only wanted white men on his team (in protest at my wife being allocated to his team -- she's not white, and
Re: (Score:2)
By your own reasoning, 'racism' has now been reduced in this discussion to something akin to 'friendliness'. We are all assumed to know what it is, therefore it exists. But we know what 'God' is, but that doesn't make him (or her) existent. It makes 'the notion of God' existent. I'm well aware that there is an existing notion of racism in society. I just think that it is particularly ill-founded.
This is not grasping at straws - we make *laws* that deal with racism. We don't do that for friendliness or beard
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it looks like yours is the first...
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you do that? Are you interested in racism? Are you doing a research paper? Are you a racist?
I'm just curious why you would say such a thing. As you say yourself, such comments are not funny. So why the great interest? Are you making a list with a plan to wreak revenge on those who post racist comments?
Most people, when confronted with anonymous racist comments would just ignore them
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you ask the question twice? Why the repetition? Why the redundancy?
I'm curious why you would ask such a thing. So why the repetition?
To answer your question, I'm getting my retaliation in first against the racists. The casual racism of /. has been fascinating to me for a while. I find it interesting that such an educated readership can sometimes get some fundamental stuff so horribly wrong, but then I suppose engineers are known to have a few people skills missing.
Your implication that only racists
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad. We're all glad.
That's an interesting twist on the phrase "consciousness raising exercise". I like it. I hope you don't mind if I use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Go right ahead. Please do. I insist.
He doesn't set the bar low: (Score:2)
I won't hold my breath waiting on the proof.
But I certainly wish him the best.
There are thousands of proofs that begin with "Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, it'd be huge.
Details? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems interesting but details are hard to find. All I can ascertain is that the fee is 4900 INR (~110 USD). The start date appears to be Oct 19th, but there's no estimate of the schedule except a listed end date of May 5th 2016. There's similarly no information about the delivery format. If anyone has more info, please post here.
An end date in 2016? Uh...did I miss something, or does his version of the Riemann Hypothesis include Life, The Universe, and Everything...
Dear Trolls, be careful talking smack about... (Score:3)
...the only place you'll soon be able to afford medical care. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
If only this wasn't true...
Re: (Score:2)
...the only place you'll soon be able to afford medical care. :-P
Flat rate health care; the price of a ticket to India.
Interesting (Score:3)
Two of the major problems (Fermat's Last Theorum and the Poincaire Conjecture) have been cracked in recent times. A third major breakthrough is not impossible, particularly in a nation that has produced some superb minds in the past.
True, India has developed a bad reputation as a result of the call centers and the crappy software engineering, but that's like dissing the engineers developing the PCI Express and HyperTransport specifications because GM can't make a decent car or Bank of America can't provide anything remotely close to service. The subjects are wholly unrelated and you can draw no conclusions about one from the other. (India still runs a better train service than Amtrak, though that should not be considered credit to either.)
Mathematics doesn't require advanced infrastructure and is better done in peace with no distractions.
Re: (Score:2)
Many (actually I think most) professional mathematicians agree that the most likely scenario is that Fermat was mistaken and his "proof" had some subtle error.
Re: (Score:2)
Fermat meant the general case. What isn't clear is whether he wrote down the right formula. n^x + n^y = n^z for n 3, according to New Scientist, does indeed yield a simple and elegant proof that could have been known in his time, and he was notorious for that kind of error. Even if he did get the formula right, he was also notorious for sloppy work and may well have made a simple error. There's all kinds of possibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Advanced mathematical knowledge, yes. But both solvers placed themselves in total isolation for a long time to get the work done.
A strong background, again yes - although there have been notable amateur mathematicians who have achieved remarkable success in history. To diss them is to do a disservice to mathematics as a whole. Besides which, a "strong background" really only means knowing a set of standard core methods. Advanced standard methods and all standard results can be piled into a database then loo
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and you seem to be assuming that anyone in India must be an amateur. Doubtless there are plenty of amateurs there, but there are also plenty of universities. There are also plenty from India who have attended either British or American university. It is illogical to assume that such people would be no better able to work in mathematics than a call center worker.
I was going to say ascetic priest, but actually several of those have made major discoveries in mathematics in England. Then I thought "author"
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say there was a claim of a proof. Neither did the summary.My point was solely that you can't ignore the possibility of an Indian succeeding in making progress towards a proof merely because the country as a whole has a poor reputation in a totally unrelated field.
Better Summary (Score:5, Funny)
Riemann Hypothesis Takes Shot At Crushing Indian Mathematician
The Riemann Hypothesis (known by the moniker @unsolvable on twitter) has announced an online workshop which it intends to 'conclude by attacking an important mathematician in front of (the participants), in public view.' The mathematician is the Rohit Gupta. The hypothesis outlines its approach based on previous failed attempts, conserved in quasicrystals of the tears of previously broken mathematicians. Its audacious plan, coupled with this recent news about quasicrystals, has kicked up a storm of interest in the Indian twitterverse.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
category? Why didn't you just say so?
Rohit Gupta --------------> Proof
| |
| |
\/ \/
Riemann Hypothesis <------- Workshop
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the Riemann zeta function, old migrainey, tenure's folly, paperbane, the widowmaker...
Cheap publicity stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
I have great respect to mathematics. Itâ(TM)s one of the few disciplines left were bs doesnâ(TM)t fly (for long), unlike, for example, economics and political science.
This is a cheap publicity stunt, nothing more. Mathematics is not dancing with the stars or what not. This is a serious scientific problem a century and a half old. If you make a mistake in your âoeproofâ, the public wonâ(TM)t be able to notice. He hopes to be able to publicly claim success, even if his solution will be disproved later (with much less publicity). The proper way to do this is to publish your proof in a peer-reviewed journal and wait to see if other mathematicians find a flaw in your argument. His approach is cheap, unscientific publicity stunt.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a cheap publicity stunt, nothing more.
And that is a bad thing exactly how?
Mathematics is not dancing with the stars or what not.
Says who? If you don't like it, don't watch it. I say that if this draw even a few bright people towards maths and shows them that this is really interesting stuff, it is a good thing. I do not understand why Mathematicians should appear as some sage-like, ascetic monks.
In other news, P=NP (Score:5, Funny)
I got bored this afternoon and did the proof a few different ways. Unfortunately, the details won't fit in this comment box.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
P(P-1) = 0
P-1 = 0
P = 1
Hence by contradiction, P = 0 must be false.
You're wrong. QED
Ask the Foldit programmers. (Score:1)
Hey, the Foldit programmers were able to model protein structures for Foldit players to solve that even the most advanced computers couldn't.
Perhaps a quasi-crystal simulator that one can manipulate and this create mathematical solutions? (Not a mathematician so dunno if that's feasible)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't the problem determining the mathematical pattern, though? Just because the method is new doesn't mean it's not valid and can't be adapted.
Indian twitterverse (Score:1)
WTF is an Indian twitterverse?
Episode 1 (Score:1)
What this means and how seriously is this (Score:5, Informative)
The Riemann Hypothesis is roughly the following: There's a function defined by zeta(s)= 1 + 1/1^s + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s... You can make this function make sense for any complex number as long as it has real part greater than 1. However, this series does not converge for s less than or equal to 1 1. However, it turns out that this function has what is called an "analytic continuation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_continuation [wikipedia.org]. Essentially it is possible to make a function on the complex plane that is smooth (in the sense of being infinitely differential), and agrees with this function everywhere. This function is known as the Riemman Zeta Function. The only caveat is that one cannot give a sensible definition for the value at s=1. (Essentially as s gets near 1, the value of the function goes to infinity).
It turns out that the behavior of zeta is deeply related to the prime numbers because of another way of writing the above series as a product over the prime numbers. So for example, a major triumph of 19th century math was showing that this function was not zero anywhere on the line with real part of s =1. This implied an approximate estimate for the size of the nth prime number called the prime number theorem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number_theorem [wikipedia.org].
The Riemann hypothesis is a much stronger claim about where the zeta function is zero. It turns out that it is very easy to show that the zeta function is zero at every negative even integer. These are the trivial zeros, There are other, more difficult to locate zeros. The hypothesis conjectures that these zeros all lie on the line with real part equal to 1/2. That is, every zero is of the form 1/2 + it where t is some real number. If this is true many nice things will follow.
Most people who have thought about this question believe that it is true. There's a lot of evidence for it, such as the fact that literally billions of zeros have been located on this line, and the fact that it can be shown in a certain sense that almost all the non-trivial zeros lie near the 1/2 line. We also know that in a certain sense a positive fraction of the non-trivial zeros need to lie on the line (one needs to be careful here with what this means since there are infinitely many such zeros).
There are a lot of current attempts to prove the Riemann Hypothesis, and some very serious mathematicians think that the quasicrystal approach might work. Right now there are a lot of different approaches, including some which connect the hypothesis to certain claims in quantum mechanics. However, at this point, despite the many attempts there are a lot of weaker claims that we can't prove that we'd expect to prove before the Riemann hypothesis. It turns out that all the non-trivial zeros need to have a real part strictly between 0 and 1. But we can't even prove what essentially amounts to the worst case scenario, that there are zeros arbitrarily near the 0 and 1 lines. I expect this to be dealt with well before the full Riemann hypothesis is proven. There are other weaker hypotheses that are implied by RH that one would also expect to be proven first. So far the quasicrystal approach sounds promising but has had very little in the way of actual fruit. But this may just be that it is a relatively new set of tools and they need to be carefully developed. Overall, I'd be surprised if this project works simply because even if a quasicrystal approach eventually proves the full result it will require so much stuff to happen before hand.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up Donny!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What this means and how seriously is this (Score:4, Informative)
There's a function defined by zeta(s)= 1 + 1/1^s + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s...
Ok. Pretty basic mistake I made here. This series should not have the initial 1. Not sure why I wrote that. So one has zeta(s)= 1/1^s + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s...
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. Pretty basic mistake I made here. This series should not have the initial 1. Not sure why I wrote that. So one has zeta(s)= 1/1^s + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s...
I wouldn't worry about it. Like you said, it's not your area!
It's not like you said you saw neutrinos break Special Relativity or anything...
With egregious use of ~
jesus christ (Score:2)
i actually understood most of that.
why can't people like you write the wikipedia math articles?
Re: (Score:2)
$10 per view? (Score:1)
If you can prove the Reimann hypothesis, do it, collect the $1000000 millennium prize and then millions more in speaking deals, chaired positions at top universities etc.
If you can't prove the Reimann hypothesis, charge $10 a head for people to watch you talk about quasicrystal nonsense.
The point being if he actually had any legitimate chance at doing this, this is not the format he would choose.
Raising money for research (Score:1)
Al Capone's Vault (Score:2)
Anyone remember Geraldo Rivera's live TV special to open Al Capone's vault? This reminds me a lot of that.
Re: (Score:2)
I dismember that too. Damn we is old.
Skeptical (Score:2)
"Registration: You can contact me directly by email (fadebox AT gmail ) for payment or any other details, or just go to this online ticketing facility I'm using called DoAttend if you have decided to join. You don't have to register at DoAttend as a user, the site will take you to the payment gateway directly. I am also accepting sponsors and private donors if you wish to contribute more than the workshop fee. Once you register, you'll be added to the mailing list in a couple of days. "
http://fadereu.posterous.com/knk103-the-crystals-of-mt-zeta [posterous.com]