For me, this result is significant. It basically adds much more hope P is equal NP (that majority seems being against). I believe one day AI will explain a major flaw in modern mathematics, so a kind of correction in axioms will be suggested to prove Rieman's hypothesis (or a completely new apparatus)

▲

_dain_ 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Why do you "hope" P=NP? It would be a catastrophe

▲

rcpt an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know if that's a "flaw". It's what Godel Incompleteness guarantees.

Would be funny if the most famous problem turns out be an example though

▲

skew-aberration an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That's not that how that works btw. The incompleteness is a property of the algorithm which does the proofs, not the theorems. If a theorem is true it has a proof and a program which proves it (printf("the proof verbatim")). But no computer program can successfully prove all theorems. The space of potential proofs is too big to search systematically, but you can still get lucky.

	▲	noslenwerdna 6 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That is also not how it works. The theorem says that there exist some true statements for which there is no proof. This is assuming the axioms are consistent.
	▲	rcpt 18 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Godel says that there are statements that are true but have no proof within that system. It's not about algorithms. I'm saying it'd be funny if Riemann were true but not proveable. Though I guess it's actually funnier. If Riemann were false then there would be a counterexample, so it's clearly within existing axioms. So if one can prove that Riemann isn't proveable in our current axioms then it has to be true.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]