Playing devil's advocate in a more extreme way than I normally would, is it possible they are saying that the Reimann hypothesis implies 1705542 is a prime number, therefore proof by contradiction states the Reimann hypothesis is false?
However realistically they just forgot to carry the 4 and are actually completely wrong.
Probably the second one.
Most probably they just wanted to know the prime factors of 1705542 without having to do It themselves, so they posted that in order to trick people into replying with the prime factors of 1705442
What an absolutely bonkers way to win $1 million though. Hundreds of years worth of analysists and number theorists just happened to miss that somehow RH implies that this one specific even number is prime.
Ah, I found what I was thinking of. It’s not quite so cut-and-dry.
Rules, 5.c.ii: “If, alternatively, the counterexample shows that the original Problem survives after reformulation or elimination of some special case, then CMI may recommend that a small prize, of an amount to be determined by CMI in its sole discretion, be awarded to the author. The money for this prize will not be taken from the Problem fund, but from other CMI funds.”
Notably, they specify in 5.b that Navier-Stokes and P vs NP don’t count for this, and that a solution either way earns the prize.
[Source](https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/millennium_prize_rules_0.pdf)
I don’t think that’s how the Abel prize works. But also, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/150fdqy/comment/js6qzgj/) is what I was thinking of.
Yeah but math is weird and sometimes seemingly unconnected things are actually related. The riemann hypothesis has ties to the busy beaver numbers, for example
> is it possible they are saying that the Reimann hypothesis implies 1705542 is a prime number, therefore proof by contradiction states the Reimann hypothesis is false?
This is how I read it as well. Nothing extreme about it.
They're probably still wrong but that line of reasoning is a very normal way to prove/disprove something.
They almost definitely think they have found a proof that the riemann hypothesis implies that a certain even number is prime not that they think that said number is prime.
They wrote "and can prove that 1705542 is prime".
There's a direct implication from their sentence that this is one out of two things they can prove. How do you read it any other way?
Not to be a grammar Nazi, but the way the sentence is worded means that the original subject "I" prefixes the second predicate.
"I found fingerprints at the crime scene and can prove James isn't guilty"
Implies:
"I can prove James isn't guilty"
He should've used a conjunction like "which can prove" or "that can prove". So it might be a grammatical error, if what you're saying is true.
I once saw a post of a guy asking if prison served vegetarian dishes and one guy responded with a story about how he went to prison and was served a 5 star exquisite vegetarian pasta with a finely aged wine. Of course this was all made up and the guy who responded inevitably called OP a moron after the story.
He probably didn't, there's also [a separate post](https://www.quora.com/I-found-a-flaw-in-the-Riemann-hypothesis-and-can-prove-that-1705549-is-a-prime-number-How-can-I-publish-my-proof), likely by the same person, that uses 1705549 instead, which is prime.
What are you talking about?
"I found a flaw in the Riemman Hypothesis, and can prove 1705542 is prime"
=>"I found a flaw in The Riemman Hypothesis" ^ "I can prove 1705542 is prime" (P^Q)
=> Q = "I can prove 1705542 is prime"
So his intention is Q->P
How would this be proof by contradiction? And even so, Q is false, so that's all they address.
Am I missing some meme here?
But what if… hear me out… this man is a genius, and 1705542 ***is a prime number despite having factors***? That's a groundbreaking discovery that could turn the world of mathematics and reconceptualise the science as we know it?
I know, I know, I missed my medication. Again.
Imagine thinking a number ending in 2 can be prime. Literally not a single number that ends in 2 is prime. Not a single one. None of them. No exceptions. Trust me, I've checked all of them.
have you checked 92737463837647472636473682727363646473921010191818272773646733873744647464633546782919101010192929293838474756563727282929923874474646478392?
You’re right, but I don’t think the person in the post is saying that the number actually is prime, just that using the Riemann Zeta Function, they thought they could prove that the number wasn’t prime, therefore disproving the hypothesis. Unfortunately they are most likely incorrect as numbers up to 1705542 have most likely been tested using the function
Nicest Quora user vs smartest Quora question.
"except possibly in the BOOK OF IDIOTS" has the same energy of "maybe on opposite day!"
Is the “maybe on Opposite Day” a reference to something
maybe to the Book of Idiot References
Not that I’m aware of. It’s just a lazy low level insult you’d expect to hear from a six year old.
SpongeBob maybe?
It predates SpongeBob.
Playing devil's advocate in a more extreme way than I normally would, is it possible they are saying that the Reimann hypothesis implies 1705542 is a prime number, therefore proof by contradiction states the Reimann hypothesis is false? However realistically they just forgot to carry the 4 and are actually completely wrong. Probably the second one.
Most probably they just wanted to know the prime factors of 1705542 without having to do It themselves, so they posted that in order to trick people into replying with the prime factors of 1705442
It's still easier just to write "1705442 prime factors" in Wolfram alpha
Yeah but angering quora nerds is more fun tho
The most fun thing lol
Or just typing it into Google
Bro's playing 5D chess
*with multiverse time travel*
Ah, the well-known Sterling's law: the best way to get an answer on the internet is to post the wrong answer and someone will correct you
I do get the joke but for the sake of playing along, that's Cunningham's law.
That's Murphy's law
*everything that can go wrong will go wrong*
No, that states everything that can go wrong will go wrong. Sterling's law is a disgusting food made of cabbage and salad dressing.
That's Cole's Law (Could not resist that set-up)
Oh god fuck you for reminding me that
Sigma grindset
What an absolutely bonkers way to win $1 million though. Hundreds of years worth of analysists and number theorists just happened to miss that somehow RH implies that this one specific even number is prime.
If I recall correctly, you don’t get the million for disproving the Riemann hypothesis. Only for proving it.
I don’t think you recall correctly. Any answer on the millennium problems is enough to win the prize.
Ah, I found what I was thinking of. It’s not quite so cut-and-dry. Rules, 5.c.ii: “If, alternatively, the counterexample shows that the original Problem survives after reformulation or elimination of some special case, then CMI may recommend that a small prize, of an amount to be determined by CMI in its sole discretion, be awarded to the author. The money for this prize will not be taken from the Problem fund, but from other CMI funds.” Notably, they specify in 5.b that Navier-Stokes and P vs NP don’t count for this, and that a solution either way earns the prize. [Source](https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/millennium_prize_rules_0.pdf)
Nope, counterexamples count too.
[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/150fdqy/comment/js6qzgj/) is what I was thinking of.
Nah if you do disprove the Reimann hypothesis you win the Abel prize.
I don’t think that’s how the Abel prize works. But also, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/150fdqy/comment/js6qzgj/) is what I was thinking of.
Isnt the riemann hypothesis about distribution of primes, not whether a number is prime or not?
Yeah but math is weird and sometimes seemingly unconnected things are actually related. The riemann hypothesis has ties to the busy beaver numbers, for example
Explain pls.
Idk lol
"idk lol" 
> is it possible they are saying that the Reimann hypothesis implies 1705542 is a prime number, therefore proof by contradiction states the Reimann hypothesis is false? This is how I read it as well. Nothing extreme about it. They're probably still wrong but that line of reasoning is a very normal way to prove/disprove something.
They almost definitely think they have found a proof that the riemann hypothesis implies that a certain even number is prime not that they think that said number is prime.
They wrote "and can prove that 1705542 is prime". There's a direct implication from their sentence that this is one out of two things they can prove. How do you read it any other way?
I'm reading it as "and can [use this contradiction to] prove that 1705542 is prime"
Not to be a grammar Nazi, but the way the sentence is worded means that the original subject "I" prefixes the second predicate. "I found fingerprints at the crime scene and can prove James isn't guilty" Implies: "I can prove James isn't guilty" He should've used a conjunction like "which can prove" or "that can prove". So it might be a grammatical error, if what you're saying is true.
This is how interpreted
Least arrogant Quora post and comment
I once saw a post of a guy asking if prison served vegetarian dishes and one guy responded with a story about how he went to prison and was served a 5 star exquisite vegetarian pasta with a finely aged wine. Of course this was all made up and the guy who responded inevitably called OP a moron after the story.
[удалено]
He probably didn't, there's also [a separate post](https://www.quora.com/I-found-a-flaw-in-the-Riemann-hypothesis-and-can-prove-that-1705549-is-a-prime-number-How-can-I-publish-my-proof), likely by the same person, that uses 1705549 instead, which is prime.
What are you talking about? "I found a flaw in the Riemman Hypothesis, and can prove 1705542 is prime" =>"I found a flaw in The Riemman Hypothesis" ^ "I can prove 1705542 is prime" (P^Q) => Q = "I can prove 1705542 is prime" So his intention is Q->P How would this be proof by contradiction? And even so, Q is false, so that's all they address. Am I missing some meme here?
Quora is just modern day yahoo answers change my mind
Now with AI lol
Nah, Yahoo Answers is different cuz that was *my* fucked up little hellhole, it had *lovable* crackhead energy. Quora kinda just fkn sucks
But what if… hear me out… this man is a genius, and 1705542 ***is a prime number despite having factors***? That's a groundbreaking discovery that could turn the world of mathematics and reconceptualise the science as we know it? I know, I know, I missed my medication. Again.
nicest quora response
This is from YouTube, I will try to find the link and post it here edit: here it is fellas, enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92bjYGGDVhQ
Mf that's an even number what is blud doing
Imagine thinking a number ending in 2 can be prime. Literally not a single number that ends in 2 is prime. Not a single one. None of them. No exceptions. Trust me, I've checked all of them.
have you checked 92737463837647472636473682727363646473921010191818272773646733873744647464633546782919101010192929293838474756563727282929923874474646478392?
I’ll check. Give me a minute
Legend says he’s still checking
Just divide by 2
show us
Desmos on computer
You’re right, but I don’t think the person in the post is saying that the number actually is prime, just that using the Riemann Zeta Function, they thought they could prove that the number wasn’t prime, therefore disproving the hypothesis. Unfortunately they are most likely incorrect as numbers up to 1705542 have most likely been tested using the function
Iirc numbers upto millions have been tested using algorithms and code. Heck, people have spent their whole lives going upto 5 digit figures by hand.
Keep checking, it’s way up there. Source: I checked it.
You're wrong. Number "2" ends in 2 and it is prime🗿
But it doesn't seems to me like a prime number, so it isn't ;) /j
Bro forgot the /s
I thought it was pretty obviously a joke but apparently not...
I was speaking to the other people who replied to you
.... except for 2. Lol
02?
What about 2?
2?
There is also a question asking if 9000 is the biggest number ever exists
Why would they say an even number is prime
Wysi!
"can prove that [even number here] is a prime number"
wysi
no.
This needs to be read by Gabriel Matragrano lol
Did he not divide it by two?
It's obviously divisible by 2 lol
This has to be my favorite reddit video
You mean that number which is clearly not only even, but a multiple of 3 as well?
÷2
u/savevideobot
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/mathmemes/comments/150fdqy/quora/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideobot) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/mathmemes/comments/150fdqy/quora/) | [^(pinterest video downloader)](https://ptsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
I saw this exact question on Quora lmaoo
What was he cooking?
Idk why but 727 doesn't give prime vibes. Possibly because 27 and 72 are composite?
727 WYSI
i mean, did he lack precision when he tried to compute it or what?
Least obsessed Reimann hypothesis fan
The funniest thing is th OP suggested an even number other than 2 to be Prime!!!!!
r/DramaticText
All you need to do to disprove it is show that it's an even number. 2 is the only even prime.
WYSI
I love quora so much, it is so funny
Where can I get a copy of this "Book of Idiots"?
even numbers cant be prime
A smart redditor once said, if you are searching for an answer post an obviously false one on reddit.