Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
UnsolvedProblems · Unsolved Problems in Number Theory,
  • Members Only
  • Post
  • Files
  • Photos
  • Links
  • Database
  • Polls
  • Members
  • Calendar
  • Promote
  • Groups Labs (Beta)
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

   Messages Help
Message #
Search:
Advanced
Jeff Cook's RH proof...   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #24 of 84 |
RE: [UnsolvedProblems] Jeff Cook's RH proof...

Greg,
 
I think your goal was the same as mine.  But the equivalence between the Mobius Function, then sum of which is called Mertens' Function is shown mathematically in equation 3 of my paper.  Proving that M(k) is big oh of k^(1/2+e) would directly prove the RH.  So I did in fact do that.  I think this is what you are speaking of in terms of equivalent growth.  But the depth of the Mobius function is described in depth in my paper beginning on page 50.  And I cover all the points which the articles you provided are based on.
 
But there are many other things I see as weaknesses in your paper from the very small to the very large...just for one instance, proposition2.  This is not a proposition at all.  It has already been proven a long while back.  So its a proof.  There are an infinite number of primes...we know that.  Such simple mistakes detur readers who are seriously studying the RH in depth.
 
I would recommend to you and others seriously wanting to understand the RH, study my proof and work out the equations with a calculator in unison.  Then you will see how the RH is true with simple evidence of 1+1=2, etc..
 
Jeff
 


Greg Orme <grego@...> wrote:
Hi Jeff,
 
If you read these it may help.
 
http://www.gregorme.com/RH/
 
This path is quite different to the one you are following but it does not require using complex numbers. Note the attached part of this article, that proving the Mobius Function has the required rate of growth is equivalent to proving the Riemann Hypothesis.
 
Greg.
 
 
 
 
 
From: UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Cook
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 7:46 AM
To: UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [UnsolvedProblems] Jeff Cook's RH proof...
 
Greg,
 
You provide the equivalence to the Mobius function's zeros, which have nothing to do with the Riemann Zeta Function non-trivial zeros.  The RH suggests that all the non-trivial zeros of the Zeta Function have a real part 1/2.  You are not dealing with the Riemann Zeta Function in your paper...just the Zeta Function for Real numbers strictly.  There are no non-trivial zeros involving strictly Real numbers.  They are all complex.
 
Perhaps I am missing something?
 
Jeff

Greg Orme <grego@...> wrote:
My proof is about an equivalent formulation of the Riemann Hypothesis, but very different to yours.
From: UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey N Cook
Sent: Thursday, 31 May 2007 8:01 AM
To: UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UnsolvedProblems] Jeff Cook's RH proof...
All,

I just thought I'd start a post to offer any explanations on my proof
which is currently being presented on the Unsolved Problems website.
There are a number of highly qualified mathematicians from around the
world with there hands on this paper. The comments I have received
were vari ed...

"Fascinating..."

to...

"...[does] not fit the standard framework of mathematics."

I would like to comment on the latter. The mathematics I present in
this paper are not extreme stretches from conventional wisdom. I
simply expanded on already known rules with new findings. There is
no break from standard mathematics.

What this paper does is deal with every known aspect of the Riemann
Hypothesis and covers each point carefully, though quickly. It may
be hard for most to follow everything...even the especially
mathematically inclined. However, I would be happy to explain each
equation and point to the paper with anyone and/or explain the
hypothesis to amateurs to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Please feel free to ask any questions openly in this forum. Please
do not email me directly, as others may want to hear the arguments.

BTW, the other proof on the website is completely lacking and deals
very little with the actual hypothesis. This is not to belittle the
author's work. It is just to make things completely clear what the
real issues with this problem indeed are and how I have discovered
quite new items.

Cheers,

Jeff Cook
 
 
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.

You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Fri Jun 1, 2007 4:04 pm

Show Message Option
jnoelcook
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward 		Message #24 of 84 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

All, I just thought I'd start a post to offer any explanations on my proof which is currently being presented on the Unsolved Problems website. There are a... 		Jeffrey N Cook
jnoelcook
Offline Send Email 		May 30, 2007
9:52 pm

My proof is about an equivalent formulation of the Riemann Hypothesis, but very different to yours. From: UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com ...
Greg Orme
zzgorme
Offline Send Email 		May 31, 2007
2:57 am

Greg, You provide the equivalence to the Mobius function's zeros, which have nothing to do with the Riemann Zeta Function non-trivial zeros. The RH suggests...
Jeffrey Cook
jnoelcook
Offline Send Email 		May 31, 2007
9:44 pm

Hi Jeff, If you read these it may help. http://www.gregorme.com/RH/ This path is quite different to the one you are following but it does not require using...
Greg Orme
zzgorme
Offline Send Email 		Jun 1, 2007
11:36 am

Greg, I think your goal was the same as mine. But the equivalence between the Mobius Function, then sum of which is called Mertens' Function is shown...
Jeffrey Cook
jnoelcook
Offline Send Email 		Jun 1, 2007
10:34 pm

I should rewrite the paper as you say. I sent it to a Journal a few years ago, but I don't think they understood it. After that I shelved it until I saw the...
Greg Orme
zzgorme
Offline Send Email 		Jun 2, 2007
1:36 am

Greg, I have two RH proofs in my paper. One that shows that M(k) is big oh of x^(1/2 + e) not for simply the power of 1/2, which my paper two would say grows...
Jeffrey Cook
jnoelcook
Offline Send Email 		Jun 2, 2007
6:15 am

Greg, I should also mention that the polite and proper thing to do when someone finds a flaw in your proof, you should humbly retract it until you fix the...
Jeffrey N Cook
jnoelcook
Offline Send Email 		Jun 3, 2007
7:54 am

What flaws are you referring to? From: UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey N Cook Sent: Sunday, 3...
Greg Orme
zzgorme
Offline Send Email 		Jun 3, 2007
10:28 am

Your first flaw is one page one, line one. You "aim" to prove something, but cannot by the method you use; you can show me example after example of something...
Jeffrey Cook
jnoelcook
Offline Send Email 		Jun 4, 2007
9:08 am

Maybe you need to write to some experts on the RH and see if they have any students or associates who might examine your paper, perhaps for a fee. Gottingen...
Greg Orme
zzgorme
Offline Send Email 		Jun 4, 2007
9:01 am
< Prev Topic  |  Next Topic >
Message #
Search:
Advanced
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help