I suggest quoting people exactly or not at all. I say that only because tremendous distortions can occur when care is not taken to get things just right.

]]>http://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0273v5.pdf

A Sequence of Cauchy Sequences Which Is Conjectured to Converge to the Imaginary Parts of the Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function

Authors: Stephen Crowley

A sequence of Cauchy sequences which conjecturally converge to the Riemann zeros is constructed and related to the LeClair-França criteria for the Riemann hypothesis.

]]>Thanks,

Stephen crowley

Nice article!

(1) I strongly support Prof. Atiyah in making the public announcement of his proof of RH. It is obvious that his result is probably the best among the authors who are 89 or over.

(2) Even if it is not considered as a complete proof, nobody can deny the possibility that some future generation mathematicians may find some hints from his presentation and preprints.

(3) I really think that Prof. Atiyah’s goal is to help to advance the understanding of mathematics from human being as a whole. In this sense, he does not really care that he lost some fame (field medal winner also made mathematical mistakes) in this event.

(4) I myself have completed a proof of Riemann Hypothesis as well. I submitted to Annals of Mathematics for publication in June 2017 but have not heard from them yet. I also uploaded it to arXiv at https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.08868.

(5) Because I am not a professional mathematician, not to mention a number theorist, I have hard time convince several professional mathematicians to give me the benefit of doubt and review the first 5 pages of section 2 of my preprint.

(6) But I do have proper training in physics and chemistry. Here is my old web page at UC Berkeley

http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/jehgrp/yms

(7) I have been wondering the following question: Why do we not hear any new story like that of Ramanujan and Hardy any more?

(8) I consider myself as epsilon times Ramanujan where epsilon =10^{-10}. I am looking for my (Prof.) Hardy.

(9) Could you please help me by giving me the benefit of doubt and reviewing the first 5 pages of section 2 of my preprint? If it make sense to you, then you may continue to read the next 5 pages…

(10) And I wish that eventually you can help me by convincing several other professional mathematicians to review the first 5 pages of section 2 of my preprint?

Best regards-

Yaoming SHI

P.S. here is my old web page at UC Berkeley

http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/jehgrp/yms

I’m not saying that this is good or bad. I just think that saying that it “disappeared” from the Intelligencer is simply incorrect.

]]>