Guys, we cracked it. Both Riemann and Collatz are resolvable with the correct framework.
Now all we've got to do is figure out whether or not Hunger and Racism might also be solved by Unknown Political Theory 1.
It just isn't math, in the same way that one can't solve Hunger or Racism via math.
It's saying "i've got a theory which if true would prove the things that it proves".
Look at her other papers. "Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis via Clifford Algebras and the Weil Explicit Formula", "Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis via the Forcing Lemma", "We prove the Riemann Hypothesis through the geometry of the zeta torus.", "Two Millennium Prize Problems: A Geometric Framework for the Riemann Hypothesis and Navier-Stokes Regularity-We present a unified geometric framework addressing two Millennium Prize Problems."
One would think that if she'd proved the Riemann Hypothesis using multiple distinct methods in the last couple years, we'd have heard something about that in the news.
Saying "I've got a model that would cover these two holes if it were true" is not the same as saying "I've got a useful model that makes observable predictions or provides uniquely useful explanations".
That the theory proposed in the article covers Riemann and Collatz means little. The theory proposed by the bible covers Riemann and Collatz, and consensus is decidedly thin on that particular paper.
If this paper had provided a genuine proof that actually proved both Riemann and Collatz, we would not first and only be hereing about it on HN. It doesn't do that. All it does is suggest that there might be a proof that does so. The reason we know that it doesn't do so definitively is that the author has several other such papers that are also unremarked upon. The author would not have had to write this paper if any of her prior "proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis" had been accepted.
Why, if she's written multiple papers each individually claiming to provide proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis that have each individually been met with little fanfare, should we suspect that this, the latest in a line of "aha, I've solved Riemann AND X" papers, is the genuine article?
I'm a nobody in terms of credentials, but I did find a unique approach that I think is worthy of a closer look. It does not use any of the typical angles with complex machinery like Hilbert Polya.