Has anyone noticed the paper On the zeros of the zeta function and eigenvalue problems by M. R. Pistorius, available on ArXiv?

The author claims a proof of RH, and also a growth condition on the zeros.

It was posted two weeks ago, and I expected it would have been shot down by now. Has there been any discussion or attempt at verification of this preprint?

**Answer**

I had a go reading through the paper and I think I found the error. The main argument in the paper can be summarized as follows:

The Riemann \Xi-function \Xi(t) = \xi\left(\frac{1}{2} + it\right) satisfy \Xi(t) = \Xi(0)\nu_t(\pi/2) where \nu_t(x) = \int_0^\infty \cos(t(y+\cos(x))\Phi(y){\rm d}y and \Phi is related to the Jacobi \theta-function. This is a result by Riemann and holds true. The author then notes that when t is such that \Xi(t) = 0 then \nu_t(x) satisfy the Sturm–Liouville (SL) problem

\left(\frac{\nu_t'(x)}{\sin(x)}\right)’ + t^2\sin(x)\nu_t(x) = 0,~~~\nu_t'(0) = 0,~~~\nu_t(\pi/2) = 0

This is also true. The proof is completed by appealing to a theorem that says that this problem only has real eigenvalues. If this holds then it follows that \Xi(t) = 0\implies t\in\mathbb{R} which is the Riemann hypotesis.

The error is in the last step. It is indeed true that a *regular* SL problem only has real eigenvalues, however this is not a regular SL problem as \frac{1}{\sin(x)} has a pole at x=0. In this case there is no guarantee that the eigenvalues have to be real and we can show this explicitly with a simple counter-example: the function \nu_t(x) = \sin(t\cos(x)) satisfy the SL problem above for any complex number t.

Given how much interest this question has generated, which I take to mean that many people thought (or perhaps just hoped) this was a potentially viable proof, I think it’s useful to talk a bit about why it *had* to be wrong. Personally I have only been in academia for \sim 10 years, but I have already managed to see \sim 50 papers^1 like this where a major result is proven in a few pages using elementary methods. This is just another one. One soon learns that papers like this are *never* correct and the reason is often this: if it could have been solved this way then it would have been solved this way many many years ago – the techniques used are just too simple. As for some useful pointers for how to judge for yourself if a paper like this has the potential for being correct I reccommend Scott Aaronsons “*Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong*“.

**Attribution***Source : Link , Question Author : David Handelman , Answer Author : Community*