Is Sir Michael Atiyah giving lecture on Monday Sept. 25 @ #HLF18? Yes.
Will he presenenting a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis? Yes, that is what his abstract says. pic.twitter.com/v1dJhUUUEk— Heidelberg Laureate Forum (@HLForum) September 20, 2018
The internet is buzzing with the news: algebraic topologist and geometer Sir Michael Atiyah has announced that at his talk next Monday at the Heidelberg Laureate Forum, he will deliver a simple new proof of the long-standing Riemann Hypothesis. The news comes as a surprise to many, considering that since the result has been unproven since its conjecture in 1859, if a proof does exist it will likely be far from simple.
Atiyah will speak at the HLF on Monday at 9am CEST, and his abstract, available to read through the HLF conference app, claims he will present “a simple proof using a radically new approach […] based on the work of Von Neumann (1936), Hirzebruch (1954) and Dirac (1928).”
In a lucky coincidence, intrepid Aperiodical stalwarts Katie and Paul will be at the HLF as part of their blog team – and will report back on whether a game-changing new proof really has been discovered, or if these claims are going to go the same way as Atiyah’s 2017 12-page proof of the odd order Feit-Thompson theorem, which we’ve heard little about since, or his sketch proof of the non-existence of a complex structure on the 6-sphere from 2016, which also didn’t result in anything.
Paul and Katie will be blogging from the HLF all week, where other laureates present will include this year’s Fields medalists Caucher Birkar, Alessio Figalli and Peter Scholze. We’ll share their blog posts here, and you can read content from the other members of the HLF blog team on their Spektrum blog.
Serre posted a comment on Google Plus to say that he had seen the supposed proof of the odd-order theorem and it is completely wrong, which would explain why we’ve heard so little about it since the previous flurry of nonagenarian-solves-major-problem articles.
In case of misunderstanding, I’m not criticizing you for this post — I was alluding to breathless articles on certain science-related websites, and perhaps even newspapers, that gave the impression that Atiyah’s argument had a good chance of being correct.
Thanks – no offence taken :) I’m equally not sure whether to take this too seriously – meaning no disrespect to a great thinker, I’m keeping an open mind. I guess we’ll see tomorrow!
Is not possíble to prove the riemann ‘s hypothesis ,because might obtinha the interactions between the quaternions as 4 dimensional manifolds,bus this is associated the non integer and imaginary Numbers and the complex Numbers following not paterna and shapes of the distributivos of real Numbers and prime numbers
I think that the fine-structure constant associated the function Todd implies the pattern and shapes geométrical that the function zeta follows pattern non linear and these connections are linked to the complex Numbers – non trivial zeros- associated the Operatór PT thatbthat the non hermitian hamiltonian matricices with properties non commutativity more the
Pseudo non associativity of equaciona of the functions with chiralities.the time and space or spacetime explain through the functions zetas with complex functions with breakdown of symmetry for the transformations form Left Handel into the rightbhanded But with asymmetrical .violation maximal of PT that generate the spscetime continuum with normalization ofvsymmetry CT that connect two opposed orientations ,that is the Todd’s function calculated by the métrics of infinities spacetimes with pattern ofvdiscreteness.There appear the prime Numbers
The connections of function of Todd and the fine constant structure are mathematical and physical bases for explain the distributions of prime Numbers and the non trivial zeros of the zeta ‘s function for the explain the real values of the complex Numbers and the holes in the continuum.How the curvatures are torcidona in the time that are the imaginary Numbers the generate two opposed orientations breaking symmetry Pt in that dimension.the RH is not true or false