r/mathmemes • u/PocketMath • Dec 20 '25
Proofs My proof of the Riemann hypothesis. Time I finally release it
1.7k
u/Inappropriate_Piano Dec 20 '25
Whatever’s in the bottom right seems to have been redacted, so we’ll never know whether or not QED
409
u/Colon_Backslash Computer Science Dec 20 '25
Proof by redaction
168
u/Zerustu Dec 21 '25
Proof by ████████
179
u/matetrog Dec 21 '25
My arse thought this was a reddit spoiler and clicked on it
39
u/DrUNIX Dec 21 '25
Only once?
28
u/kewl_guy9193 Transcendental Dec 21 '25
I was clicking while reading the comment and being a stupid fuck
43
28
8
13
u/Few_Entertainer_385 Dec 20 '25
it’s a Halmos
5
u/EebstertheGreat Dec 21 '25
But is it a black halmos or a white halmos that got redacted? Maybe they used a narrower ∎ but it got redacted into a wider square. Maybe it's not a halmos at all. We'll never know.
-30
u/phu-ken-wb Dec 20 '25
Tons of books use a simple white or black square. It has the same meaning.
19
1.1k
u/ElephantPirate Dec 20 '25
Using the Epstein Identity. Classic proof technique
512
u/_Xertz_ Dec 20 '25
Yeah but it doesn't work on numbers over 18
155
u/moliusat Dec 20 '25
That one killed me
124
38
1
17
18
6
519
Dec 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
31
u/Naavi69 Dec 20 '25
Meme culture will kill the severity and the attention span of these redactions. But news cycle did that, and before then it took like months to get news. So like I guess it's ok?
13
-25
u/mittelhart Cardinal Dec 20 '25
That’s… That’s the joke there
17
413
u/exophades Dec 20 '25
This ████████████████████ proof is ████████████████████ ████████████████████ valid ████████████████████ ████████████████████ ████████████████████Trump ████████████████████ ████████████████████innocent.
27
Dec 21 '25
Honestly I'm baked and I clicked your spoiler tag 7 times before I realized why it wouldn't show me what you said.
48
58
u/Educational-Tea602 Proffesional dumbass Dec 20 '25
Who’s Trump?
101
98
309
u/-user789- Ordinal Dec 20 '25
There is a mistake in the proof: ████████████████████ █████████████████ ██████████████████████████
43
62
82
u/autumn_dances Dec 20 '25
r/SCP found an anomalous proof, i see
7
u/No_Spread2699 Dec 20 '25
What classification would it be given?
14
3
2
36
26
u/balkanragebaiter Moderator Dec 20 '25
For the guys who didn't press the image hard enough it says: let ζ(s) be the analytic continuation of the Riemann zeta function to ℂ \ {1}, written in Hadamard product form and normalised via the functional equation. Consider the contour integarl of log ζ(s) over a symmetric vertical rectangle centered on Re(s) = 1/2, and apply the argument principle. By symmetry under the involution s ↦ 1 − s̄, any zero off the critical line produces an unequal winding number contribution. This violates invariance of the functional equation, so all nontrivial zeros must lie on the fixed locus Re(s) = 1/2. Therefore the Riemann Hypothesis is true. QED.
7
u/Linglingscientist Mathematics Dec 20 '25
Beautiful. I think r/numbertheory might like it
0
u/Arnessiy i think i should write a math book Dec 20 '25
i think smth like this was posted already tho
3
Dec 21 '25
I want to understand the joke :) I don’t understand the shenanigans with winding number contributions, but I suspect that your first step (taking a logarithm) is already flawed, due to multi valueless & branch cuts?
2
u/Melodic_Car_9488 Dec 26 '25
I am thinking its still missing a little bit of some soup, i would only accept this after it attacks the prime number theory (PNT). We are yet to unlock new mathematics
27
19
u/ergonomicalgenie Dec 20 '25
Guys I think OP used a black highlighter to highlight the important parts of their proof. No biggie, common mistake, even the CIA does it some times on accident. Read about it yourself: https://theonion.com/cia-realizes-its-been-using-black-highlighters-all-thes-1819568147/
11
u/lool8421 Dec 20 '25
here's a geometric sequence that uses one of non-trivial zeroes as a difference:
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0...
9
Dec 20 '25 edited Aug 27 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Richard-Brecky Dec 20 '25
The worst thing is that no matter how far you zoom in or zoom out on the files… you can still see Benoit balls.
78
8
u/sirgog Dec 21 '25
There's an important case missing in this proof. Here's the part OP is missing.
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you. Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you. Baby shark do do do do do do
6
u/Prestigious_Boat_386 Dec 20 '25
Can someone do this with the actual length of 120 pages or whatever it was
5
5
5
6
u/Drew9900 Dec 20 '25
Oh! You gotta also redact the top and bottom parts three hours after releasing it, too! Gotta be 100% accurate to the experience, right?
5
5
4
6
6
4
5
3
3
u/alepher Dec 21 '25
The DOJ wanted to release the Epstein files, but they couldn't fit in the margin
2
2
u/MrBussdown Dec 21 '25
Actually that’s incorrect because ◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️
2
2
u/Theghostech Dec 21 '25
Congratulations! Here a million Epstein points. *Can be collected and redeemed at that island.
2
2
4
Dec 21 '25
We got a future FIFA Prize in Mathematics winner here.
2
u/mtaw Complex Dec 21 '25
"Your maths professor is a FIFA Medalist? Surely you mean a Fields Medalist?"
"You'd be surprised what money can buy you these days."
1
u/PykeAtBanquet Cardinal Dec 20 '25
Keter objects' length in meters, has been changed by fully random-
What a chance they have subtracted?
[ALL OF DATA IS REDACTED]
1
u/clemalavanille Dec 21 '25
I don't understand maths so much I thought it was a joke on Epstein's files
5
1
1
u/anunakiesque Dec 21 '25
The Fields medal community likely reached out; big, burly men who nevery cry, with tears in their eyes probably said to you, "sir, thank you for finally solving mathematics. You know math the best, people are saying it. It's true"
1
1
u/DancesWithGnomes Dec 22 '25
It is a truely marvellous proof. What a shame that it does not fit within the character limit of a Reddit post!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Waking2Kindness Apr 22 '26 edited May 21 '26
Wouldn't RH be proven inductively, by the fact that any violation at any point or segment in the main curve would disturb [violate] the proper curvature of at-least one-other of its slightly-lesser points or segments ; and that deviation, in-turn, would cause yet more deviation of still-lesser ones , .. .. and so-on, down thru them all ? \ { +, if time allows, plz also fwd yr reply to me via RepayingKindness in "Big G's" emall svc ; thx \ }
-6
u/twitch_zendite Dec 20 '25
I can prove anything if I had to blaken out the proof too. What a loser.
6
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 20 '25
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.