But that could be what they want us to think. I'm not denying that we maybe have to prove the hypothesis but what a perfect idea for a puzzle, a hidden puzzle showcased in an obvious near impossible one, they can almost insist that we have to prove the hypothesis, just to stear us away from the real puzzle. The riemann hypothesis is the perfect question to pose for this situation.
This could all have been planned from the start, to lead us into thinking that the Riemann hypothesis was the puzzle that needed solving.
An interesting idea, but why would MC not want us to solve the puzzle?
My thoughts are that they put this card in to pretty-much be certain that there would be a card left to solve at the end of the (first) game.
and also to promote an interest in the topic (providing info on a much harder topic and much bigger prize)
Rich
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:42 am
fretty
Quote:
MC have said in the past the you do need to prove the hypothesis to solve the card.
But that could be what they want us to think. I'm not denying that we maybe have to prove the hypothesis but what a perfect idea for a puzzle, a hidden puzzle showcased in an obvious near impossible one, they can almost insist that we have to prove the hypothesis, just to stear us away from the real puzzle. The riemann hypothesis is the perfect question to pose for this situation.
This could all have been planned from the start, to lead us into thinking that the Riemann hypothesis was the puzzle that needed solving.
I'll stop there, starting to sound like a conspiracy nut.
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:52 am
Bakers_12
MC have said in the past the you do need to prove the hypothesis to solve the card.
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:37 am
ER123456
Has everyone given up on this card?
I had some thoughts which I posted many months ago - and ignored. May I post them again?
1) There is a solution to this card - i.e. a piect of text to enter
2) It is not a proof of the Rieman Hypothesis (as the text box doesn't take formulae, and MC dont have a proof)
So the puzzle is to demonstrate that we have proved the hypothisis, rather than prove it.
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
I suspect that the answer is of the form "I have the cheque" or "I won the prize" the puzzle is to find out the correch phrase to use.
Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:18 am
themandotcom
Anonymous wrote:
We do know the question. The question is, "Is the Riemann Hypothesis valid?" Just because no one knows what the right answer is, it doesn't mean there is none. Someday there might be. For all we know, someone who gets this card decides to grow up and become a mathematician who one day can answer that question.
That's me!
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:08 pm
Guest
Si wrote:
How can anyone solve the card when we don't know what the question is?
We do know the question. The question is, "Is the Riemann Hypothesis valid?" Just because no one knows what the right answer is, it doesn't mean there is none. Someday there might be. For all we know, someone who gets this card decides to grow up and become a mathematician who one day can answer that question.
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:56 am
Si
Bombieri theorem
A verbal description of this result is that it addresses the error term in Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions, averaged over the moduli q up to Q. For a certain range of Q, which are around √x if we neglect logarithmic factors, the error averaged is nearly as small as √x.
This is quite unobvious, and without the averaging is about of the strength of the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH).
If you want to see the equation look up Enrico Bombieri on the Wiki and the equation is on there
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:25 pm
Si
Guys, has anyone tried this as a solution :
The Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem is one of the major applications of the large sieve method. It improves Dirichlet's theorem on prime numbers in arithmetic progressions, by showing that by averaging over the modulus over a range, the mean error is much less than can be proved in a given case.
This result can sometimes substitute for the still-unproved generalized Riemann hypothesis.
Worth trying '(The) Bombieri-Vinogradov Theorem' as a solution?
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:09 pm
Si
How can anyone solve the card when we don't know what the question is?
If the answer to the card is to solve the Reimann hypothesis then we all know that's not going to happen so card in the bin time, but I can't understand why Mind Candy would put a card in that is (as far as we are concerned) is unsolveable.
Surely, the 256 cards are all solveable otherwise A - We are wasting money buying them, B - Mind Candy are very cruel or C - There is an answer but we are missing something.
Also, why choose this puzzle out of the Millenium puzzles - why not choose another one that could at least be attempted or possibly solved by someone in the near future?
I am probably wrong but something is not right with this card, I still believe that there is a solution (otherwise whats the point of having a solve page for the answer when Mind Candy wouldn't know the solve for Reimann as pointed out lots of times) and I hope someone solves it (if it can be lol) soon.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:40 pm
themandotcom
If anyone wants to *attempt* to do this card, i suggest reading Prime Obsession by John Derbyshire. Its a great book and its very informative, and you dont need a big math background to understand it
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:10 pm
Perplexed_Rug
Riemann Schmieman
Managed to get on of these cards on the cheap and first glance, it reminded me of some mathematics we learnt during our computing course...
Euler studied this and came up with some equations which seemed to work along Reimanns case. In 1986 it was shown that the first 1,500,000,001 nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function do indeed have real part one-half so maybe this card wants us to work out if the 1,500,000,002nd fits in the with equation.
The other thought is HOW on earth do you get those greek symbols into the solve field if the card asks for mathematical proof? Or do we just need to show our calculations in numbers...
The other option is to try and take the largest possible prime out there and see if that fits in with the Riemann equation....Now where did I put my version of CRAY?
Maybe, the answer is simple
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
SPLUNGE
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:34 am
Mindez
gunny wrote:
I think we can safely assume that the answer to the Riemann problem is not the answer to the card.
And yet, we can't. MC have TOLD us, plainly, that there is no solve to the card.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:56 am
gunny
The problem is that, assuming that Mind Candy hasn't actually solved Riemann themselves, (which seems very unlikely) is what the actual question is, because if it is Riemann, how would MC know the answer? I think we can safely assume that the answer to the Riemann problem is not the answer to the card.
But at the moment, cracking the MC Dbases seems the only way to find the answer.
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:05 am
friscodude
Could always try and hack the MindCandy answer database if worst comes to worse.
Of course, that's probably nearly impossible, but I agree with the idea that you can't have to solve the hypothesis. I of course, don't physically have the card, so I can't try anything with it (burning, 3D glasses, anything stupid) and I'm stumped as to what the answer could be.
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:33 pm
si
This may have been suggested already, apologies if it has, but as the card is a statement as pointed out in the earlier pages and there isn't actually a direct question or puzzle to solve (apart from the $1 million prize) has anyone tried on the solve page:
'What is the question'
Maybe it is as simple as that, realistically the answer to the problem on the card will never be proven in our lifetime and I cannot see the point of setting a card with no answer when the other 255 cards are all possible?
