[waynecochran]

This is the difference between a scientist and a mathematician. A scientist would consider the empirical evidence more than sufficient to consider RH to be true.

Of course there is hope that a proof of RH would reveal some deeper understanding -- not merely a conformation.

[hansvm]

I'm not so sure a scientist would consider RH true at this point. Math has a rich history of conjectures appearing true for the first n dimensions, the first k inputs, the first z partial/tangential proofs, etc. The evidence for RH isn't any stronger than that for a plethora of eventually-proven-false conjectures.

Do you know if anyone has tabulated stats on conjecture proofs? That could be a fun dataset to examine.

[jjgreen]

As Richard K. Guy's strong law of small numbers states: There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them.