I mean, I did, but it's no different from saying "accept the langlands program as succesful" followed by anything else. It might be an interested philosophical discourse, but so is "what if the green I see isn't the green you see?(as recently popularized on HN)".
It just isn't math, in the same way that one can't solve Hunger or Racism via math.
I mean that all such attempts: this, langlangs, and any other 'grand unified theory' are of course just embeddings of the problems that they try to unify.
It's saying "i've got a theory which if true would prove the things that it proves".
Look at her other papers. "Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis via Clifford Algebras and the Weil Explicit Formula", "Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis via the Forcing Lemma", "We prove the Riemann Hypothesis through the geometry of the zeta torus.", "Two Millennium Prize Problems: A Geometric Framework for the Riemann Hypothesis and Navier-Stokes Regularity-We present a unified geometric framework addressing two Millennium Prize Problems."
One would think that if she'd proved the Riemann Hypothesis using multiple distinct methods in the last couple years, we'd have heard something about that in the news.
Guys, we cracked it. Both Riemann and Collatz are resolvable with the correct framework.
Now all we've got to do is figure out whether or not Hunger and Racism might also be solved by Unknown Political Theory 1.