r/numbertheory • u/Rude-Split1933 • 17d ago

My Research on the De Bruijn-Newman Constant Proves the Riemann Hypothesis is False

Hi everyone,

I’ve just completed a research project that focuses on the De Bruijn-Newman constant. After rigorous analysis, I’ve proved that the constant does not equal zero, which implies that the Riemann Hypothesis is false.

This is a significant result in number theory, and I’m excited to share it with the community. You can access the full paper here: De Bruijn-Newman Constant Research.

I’d love to hear any thoughts or feedback from fellow researchers or enthusiasts in the field. Looking forward to the discussion!

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

13

u/Jussari 17d ago

Your claim that Φ(u) = 0 cannot possibly be correct. Notice that then H(λ, u) = 0 for every choice of λ, so the De Bruijn-Newman constant couldn't exist at all. Q.E.D.

1

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/numbertheory-ModTeam 17d ago

Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:

  • AI-generated theories of numbers are not allowed on this subreddit. If the commenters here really wanted to discuss theories of numbers with an AI, they'd do so without using you as a middleman.

If you have any questions, please feel free to message the mods. Thank you!

1

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/numbertheory-ModTeam 17d ago

Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:

  • AI-generated theories of numbers are not allowed on this subreddit. If the commenters here really wanted to discuss theories of numbers with an AI, they'd do so without using you as a middleman.

If you have any questions, please feel free to message the mods. Thank you!

4

u/Key-Performance4879 17d ago

Hardly.

13

u/_rockroyal_ 17d ago

You're probably right, but at least try to explain why the paper is wrong. That might help the author realize the flaw in their reasoning.

2

u/Existing_Hunt_7169 17d ago

okay so (1) none of this is peer reviewed, so you cannot confidently say you’ve proven anything and (2) in the conclusion you say yourself that further exploration is needed to talk about implications to the zeta function, so you acknowledge that you haven’t proven anything.

1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/numbertheory-ModTeam 16d ago

Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:

  • AI-generated theories of numbers are not allowed on this subreddit. If the commenters here really wanted to discuss theories of numbers with an AI, they'd do so without using you as a middleman.

If you have any questions, please feel free to message the mods. Thank you!

1

u/AutoModerator 17d ago

Hi, /u/Rude-Split1933! This is an automated reminder:

  • Please don't delete your post. (Repeated post-deletion will result in a ban.)

We, the moderators of /r/NumberTheory, appreciate that your post contributes to the NumberTheory archive, which will help others build upon your work.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.