https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325035649_The_Final_and_Exhaustive_Proof_of_the_Riemann_Hypothesis_from_First_Principles<p>I am not a mathematical expert but few of the mathematicians we had access to have confirmed that this could be a possible proof.<p>So I wanted to ask how do we get this proof validated the by the larger scientific community?<p>Dr. Kumar has used the properties of primes and analytic continuation and had a new way of handling slowly converging series and was able to use (at the crucial point) concepts borrowed from Donald Knuth regarding random numbers and random sequences. Knuth had said that for any sequence to be truly random it has to be non-cyclic. The proof required to show that a sequence of +1's and -1's , obtained from the prime factorization of the infinite sequence of integers, had to be shown to be random and to asymptotically behave like the tosses of a coin.<p>Previous discussions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12889009
The proof is flawed: <a href="https://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin//zeta/herrington_eswaran_2018.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin//zeta/herri...</a>
So the previous discussion link is from 2016. Why does this smell like a desperate attempt to get mathematical fame? Why does this post smell like a "For your consideration" promotion? The previous discussion also talked about what a quirky guy the prof is, as if trying to make it about personality.