How Dr. Zhu work on proving Riemann's Hypothesis was reviewed by the mathematical community?

Question

I am not aware of the logical mistakes or flaws of the Dr. Zhu paper:

Zhu Y., The probability of Riemann's hypothesis being true is equal to 1,

arXiv:1609.07555 (2016, 2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07555

Answer 1

I haven't seen Zhu's paper, but there is something called Denjoy's probabilistic argument (for the Riemann Hypothesis) which may be similar. I quote from Wikipedia:

Denjoy's probabilistic argument for the Riemann hypothesis (Edwards 1974) is based on the observation that if $\mu(x)$ is a random sequence of $1$s and $-1$s then, for every $\epsilon>0$, the partial sums $M(x) = \sum_{n \le x} \mu(n)$ (the values of which are positions in a simple random walk) satisfy the bound $M(x) = O(x^{1/2+\varepsilon})$ with probability $1$. The Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to this bound for the Möbius function $\mu$ and the Mertens function $M$ derived in the same way from it. In other words, the Riemann hypothesis is in some sense equivalent to saying that $\mu(x)$ behaves like a random sequence of coin tosses. When $\mu(x)$ is nonzero its sign gives the parity of the number of prime factors of $x$, so informally the Riemann hypothesis says that the parity of the number of prime factors of an integer behaves randomly. Such probabilistic arguments in number theory often give the right answer, but tend to be very hard to make rigorous, and occasionally give the wrong answer for some results, such as Maier's theorem.