Scholar’s Advanced Technological System

For some time now, the Ark has been busy studying superconducting materials and graduating students.

Although a label had been placed on Sir Attia's thesis and on the progress of Lehman's assumptions, the report of the Heidelberg winners' forum did not give him time to pay attention, coupled with a sudden nod call, so that he had completely forgotten about the matter.

Until recently, he suddenly received an invitation to write an appointment for the Yearbook of Mathematics.

The editor-in-chief, Professor Peter Sanak, hoped that he would write a short review of no more than 500 words for Sir Attia's thesis before the Ark remembered the news, which had been in the mathematical realm for some time.

Early in the morning, when he came to the office, Hardy walked over with some A4 paper.

“Professor, I've printed your paper. ”

Taking Sir Attia's thesis from Hadi's hand, the ark stunned slightly and looked at Hadi with suspicion.

“Is that all? ”

“Yes, Professor,” Hardy nodded, "I'm sure that's all. ”

The paper consists of five pages, with only three citations. There is a slight typographical error in subsections 3 and 4, but the problem is small.

If required by the standards of a doctoral thesis, the thesis is definitely irrelevant, but it is more tolerant for academics bulls.

For example, when Wiles first proved the Fermat Theorem, he even added a "preamble” to the abstract to describe the Fermat Theorem and his childhood in a few short words, and it was just a smile.

Sir Attia, of course, is also qualified for tenure. After all, he is the recipient of the Fields and Abel Awards, and the study of the theorem of Attia Singh indicators is one of the most important mathematical achievements of the twentieth century.

None of this, however, is the point.

Will the mathematics community blindly believe a person because of what glory or achievement they have had?

The invitation came from Professor Sanak and out of respect for a highly respected scholar. Even without much hope, the Ark sat in its office chair and took this five-page paper with no subjective colour.

However, the more he looked down, the tighter his eyebrows became.

As Sir Attia had previously claimed, he had “solved” the problem in a very simple way.

Indeed, such claims are often unreliable…

Read the paper from beginning to end, and the Ark has a preliminary understanding of the entire paper's proofing philosophy.

Simply put, Sir Attia introduced a weakly parsed todd function of his own in the attestation, and linked this todd function to the fine structural constants in physics in a hypothetical way.

The most annoying is not that he did not specifically describe what this todd function is in his thesis and where it relates to the Lehman zeta function, but that he used counter-argumentation in his argumentation.

Yes, he actually used counter-approval.

That is, if Lehman's guess is wrong, then "my theory” is contradictory.

Because my theory can't be contradictory, Lehman must be right...

Seeing this, one can actually draw conclusions.

Unfortunately, it now seems that my initial premonition was correct.

Looking at the look on the face of the Ark, Hardy asked beside him, "Professor, how do you feel about this paper? ”

After hearing this sentence, the ark suddenly laughed and set aside the paper.

“You're also in the direction of mathematics, don't you have any idea? ”

Hardy scratched his head with embarrassment, “I'm not studying the Lehman zeta function… To be honest, Sir Attia's thesis is so deep, it seems to use some physical nouns. ”

Ark: “Yes, Sir Attia uses some physical terms. I have heard from Professor Witten, whom I am familiar with, that Sir Attia appears to have entered the field of physics only in recent years, and that his physical intuition does not dare to compliment him. As for the paper, commonly, he constructed a weakly parsed todd function in his paper and combined it with a physical concept. ”

“What's wrong with that weakly parsed todd function?” Hardy couldn't help but ask.

Ark: “Whether there is a problem with weakly resolving the todd function itself remains to be debated… because there is really too little information available about this function for me to judge. The biggest problem in his paper was the introduction of fine structural constants in physics. ”

Hardy: "… fine structural constants? ”

“Well," the ark nodded, continuing, "this is an important infinite program number in physics, symbol α, commonly found in quantum electrodynamics. ”

This is an important concept in physics, which is commonly used to measure the intensity of the action of charged particles with electromagnetic fields.

Interestingly enough, physicists spent more than a century trying to derive an alpha value from a physics perspective and then “make up” a mathematical formula for it.

Unfortunately, no one has succeeded so far that most people have given up.

In Sir Attia's thesis, however, it is reckless to use this concept directly and as the very essence of one's own argument.

Though reluctant to say so, most of the people who often do this sort of thing are folk subjects like Professor Enoch…

Hadi said with regret: "… if you say so, Sir Attia will not be in danger for the evening. ”

“No,” the ark shook its head, "even if he was wrong, his courage would still be appreciated. ”

In academia, there is an intrinsic difference between "honest mistake” and “academic forgery”.

Einstein has repeatedly claimed in his later years that he has found a way to unify the field, even counting until the moment before his death… Even then, people no longer believe in his calculations, but simply quietly accompany him to the end.

In any case, it is already quite difficult to reach the age of 90 and to be able to work in research.

It is even more expensive to bet on your own honor and show courage to challenge Peak Everest.

Anyway, the old man should be happy with what he said before...

……

The Journal of Mathematics, the Ark pondered, and finally wrote a politely worded reply, gently dropping Professor Peter Sanak's invitation to the Journal of Mathematics on the grounds that the study was busy.

Unlike the obscure and lengthy and complex paper of the New Year's Eve, anyone who understands is obliged to stand up and testify when no one knows if he is right or wrong.

However, the problems in Sir Attia's thesis are obvious and can be discerned without even the use of particularly advanced mathematical knowledge.

Even if he doesn't say anything, everyone knows it.

But this black-faced thing should be left to old Mr. Faltines.

Anyway, Mr. Fartings, that's “mean” to no one. It's also famous in the mathematics world. It doesn't seem strange, let alone disgraceful.

But letting a 25-year-old do this...

It's a bit too disregard for the seniors' feelings.

After writing this reply, the Ark suddenly had some understanding as to why it was clearly such a big deal that nobody at Princeton Institute of Higher Studies implicitly discussed it.

After all, everyone has the day of aging, and everyone needs decency and dignity...

Especially for a respectable scholar.

Also, while the media likes to exaggerate the facts with something eye-catching, they are also more willing to believe that nearly 90 years old Sir Attia is still alive...

Unfortunately, however, mathematics seeks only the truth and does not and has not compromised public opinion.