

Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis on a Relativistic Turing Machine - zyrnick
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322222352_The_Proof_of_the_Riemann_Hypothesis_on_a_Relativistic_Turing_Machine
The physical proof of the Rieman hypothesis is presented in the article: Y.N. Zayko, The Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis on a Relativistic Turing Machine, International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics, V. 3, № 6, Dec.  2017, PP. 219-224
======
rerx
This is not a serious journal and "Science Publishing Group" is a scam
publisher.

~~~
okket
And since publishing more than half a year ago, it got one citation. By the
author in his next paper.

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322222352_The_Proof...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322222352_The_Proof_of_the_Riemann_Hypothesis_on_a_Relativistic_Turing_Machine)

------
Zanni
As there doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether relativistic Turing
machines can actually exist, I'm not sure this constitutes a proof (though the
paper itself is beyond me).

The _idea_ of relativistic Turing machines is fascinating, however: "... we
might [through clever application of General Relativity, likely involving
black holes] be able to speed up the time of one observer, say C (for
"computer"), relatively to the other observer, say P (for "programmer". Thus P
may observe C computing very fast ..." [0]

But (from another source) "... all these claims rely on the provision of one
or more unphysical resources ..." [1]

[0]
[http://www.cs.swan.ac.uk/cie06/files/d68/cie06presentation.p...](http://www.cs.swan.ac.uk/cie06/files/d68/cie06presentation.pdf)

[1] [https://www.i-programmer.info/news/112-theory/10516-no-
super...](https://www.i-programmer.info/news/112-theory/10516-no-super-turing-
machines.html)

------
keymone
> Abstract: In this article, the proof of the Riemann hypothesis is considered
> using the calculation of the Riemann ζ-function on a relativistic computer.
> The work lies at the junction of the direction known as "Beyond Turing",
> considering the application of the so-called "relativistic supercomputers"
> for solving non-computable problems and a direction devoted to the study of
> non-trivial zeros of the Riemann ζ-function. Considerations are given in
> favor of the validity of the Riemann hypothesis with respect to the
> distribution of non-trivial zeros of the ζ-function.

The title is wrong it seems

~~~
JadeNB
> The title is wrong it seems

Just because it's an academic paper doesn't mean it's not clickbait
(especially since it's a junk paper, as others have described).

------
_Microft
Here's the paper in question (PDF):

[http://article.ijtam.org/pdf/10.11648.j.ijtam.20170306.17.pd...](http://article.ijtam.org/pdf/10.11648.j.ijtam.20170306.17.pdf)

------
zyrnick18
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the representatives of
the community for their interest in my publication on the proof of the Riemann
hypothesis. In addition, given a large number of questions, I would like to
offer the community's attention to my publication on the study of the Riemann
zeta-function by physical methods
([http://ru.math.wikia.com/wiki/An_investigation_of_the_Rieman...](http://ru.math.wikia.com/wiki/An_investigation_of_the_Riemann_zeta-
function_by_physical_methods)). Since the interest also expressed about
relativistic computers, I want to draw attention to the fact that, unlike
quantum computers that facilitate the solution of computationally difficult
problems, they can solve non-computable problems.

------
netgusto
What is a physical proof? Is it different from a mathematical proof? If so,
does that mean that the hypothesis is proved only for a specific domain
(physical), and not in the mathematical domain?

------
legostormtroopr
No doubt this is very interesting, but can we get a basic explanation on the
impact of this?

I tried to skim the wikipedia page, but its very dense. For example, does this
change cryptography?

~~~
auntienomen
This is a garbage paper. It doesn't change anything.

------
TekMol
I never understood why the Rieman Hypothesis is interesting/important. Is
there an easy way to explain why it gets so much attention?

~~~
Certhas
There is a vast array of mathematical results that hold _if_ Riemann is true.
Wikipedia has a list:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis#Consequence...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis#Consequences)

Essentially, it seems to encode a hard ground truth on the behaviour (and in
particular the growth) of arithmetic structures. It often (but not always) is
the case that Riemann gives you a best/strongest version of a result. Meaning
that the zeta function in some meaningful way encodes all there is to know.

------
zyrnick18
See wiki-page "An investigation of the Riemann zeta-function by physical
methods" for better undestanding

------
quickthrower2
Misleading HN title, can it be changed?

------
e_carra
Can you post a link to it?

