# On the proofs (and disproofs) of Riemann Hypothesis [closed]

As anyone who follows the arxiv, I notice every now and then "proofs" and "disproofs" of Riemann Hypothesis. I looked on several such articles, and it seemed to me quite nonsense, but I didn't make the effort to find a mistake. My question is whether someone reads these "proofs"?

BTW, I wanted to refer to some of these papers in the arxiv, but it turned out that there are too many of them.

-

## closed as no longer relevant by Bill Johnson, Andy Putman, Felipe Voloch, Henry Cohn, Mark SapirFeb 2 '12 at 4:50

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I assume the authors themselves read them, so the answer is YES ;) Perhaps your question should be more specific, e.g. "what are the common failed attempts?" or something along those lines. If you do edit the question into something like that, it probably should be community wiki. – Grétar Amazeen Nov 26 '09 at 20:32
I think the question is not so much "what are the common failed attempts" as "where can one find refutations of specific attempts". But I might have misunderstood Lior. – Yemon Choi Nov 26 '09 at 20:43
It could very well be me who misunderstood him. But either way that is asking for a list, and should be community wiki. – Grétar Amazeen Nov 26 '09 at 22:02
A short list of ArXiv "proofs" of RH is available in my contribution to mathoverflow.net/questions/59770/… – Gerry Myerson Jan 31 '12 at 22:53

A counterpoint, Hales proof on sphere packings. The checking team "gave up" after 18 months(?), largely as they were learning nothing new but just verifying inequalities. Whether the proof was "correct" became not so interesting in the end. When reducing a proof to finite computation, there are interesting ways and ones that shed no light. Another paper I am told, is Friedlander and Iwaniec on $X^2+Y^4$ being prime (Annals). There is "nothing new" in that paper, for 2 related papers (Duke+FI, Fouvry+I) first break a parity problem, and experts say FrIw is tour de force in technicalities then. – Junkie Apr 12 '11 at 7:10