[goodmythical]

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.

[kristintynski]

Can you explain what you mean more? The proof doesn't rest on langlands or assuming anything else is true.

[goodmythical]

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.

[kristintynski]

Are you saying you think RH is unsolvabe? that any GUT will be a tautology by definition? or am I reading that wrong?

[goodmythical]

I really wasn't, but it's well known that no model can be a perfect reproduction of the system it models. Any such GUT will have certain holes, and you certainly can't boot strap a model by observing that it doesn't have some certain hole.

Saying "I've got a model that would cover these two holes if it were true" is not the same as saying "I've got a useful model that makes observable predictions or provides uniquely useful explanations".

That the theory proposed in the article covers Riemann and Collatz means little. The theory proposed by the bible covers Riemann and Collatz, and consensus is decidedly thin on that particular paper.

If this paper had provided a genuine proof that actually proved both Riemann and Collatz, we would not first and only be hereing about it on HN. It doesn't do that. All it does is suggest that there might be a proof that does so. The reason we know that it doesn't do so definitively is that the author has several other such papers that are also unremarked upon. The author would not have had to write this paper if any of her prior "proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis" had been accepted.

Why, if she's written multiple papers each individually claiming to provide proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis that have each individually been met with little fanfare, should we suspect that this, the latest in a line of "aha, I've solved Riemann AND X" papers, is the genuine article?

[kristintynski]

I'm the author. The reason is the first two papers were incomplete attempts at what this final work became. They did get attention, and I'm writing a paper with Garret Sobczyk a core aspect of this related to nilpotents and the fano plane. He approached me after reading those earlier papers.

I'm a nobody in terms of credentials, but I did find a unique approach that I think is worthy of a closer look. It does not use any of the typical angles with complex machinery like Hilbert Polya.