The proof detailed in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1517v10.pdf is wrong since eq. 9 (alpha=1/2) cannot be deduced at all from eq. (8), hence invalidating the whole proof.
To make a more general comment, I don't think this section should be used to propose attempts of a proof, but only a fully validated proof if there's one some day (and I hope so). There are indeed numerous invalid proofs every year for this mathematical problem, and regular forums are much more adapted to discuss on these attempts. This site is much more a collection of open mathematical problems with their current status and would be rapidly obfuscated by long standing discussions about various attempts of proof on each problem... Of course I'm not the webmaster of the site and he may confirm or contradict this personal opinion
login/create account
Drupal
CSI of Charles University
This supposed proof is incorrect
Dear Zeraoulia Elhadj,
The proof detailed in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1517v10.pdf is wrong since eq. 9 (alpha=1/2) cannot be deduced at all from eq. (8), hence invalidating the whole proof.
To make a more general comment, I don't think this section should be used to propose attempts of a proof, but only a fully validated proof if there's one some day (and I hope so). There are indeed numerous invalid proofs every year for this mathematical problem, and regular forums are much more adapted to discuss on these attempts. This site is much more a collection of open mathematical problems with their current status and would be rapidly obfuscated by long standing discussions about various attempts of proof on each problem... Of course I'm not the webmaster of the site and he may confirm or contradict this personal opinion
Regards, Eric Chopin