User blog comment:Alemagno12/BM2 has a problem/@comment-30754445-20180724073311/@comment-35470197-20180725141921

@PsiCubed2

An "evidence" is not a mathematical notion. The word "evidence" is sometimes used with the meaning "it looks/should be true". For example, old mathematicians said that several theorems under \(\textrm{ZFC}\) were evidences of \(\neg \textrm{AC}\). They did not state that \(\textrm{AC}\) was disprovable under \(\textrm{ZF}\). A similar use of the word "evidence" can be found around \(\textrm{CH}\).

I know what you mean. I have NEVER believed that RH is true. It would be the same if there were \(BB(10^{100})\) examples of non-trivial zero. I am a strict formalist against number theory and arithmetic.

Before recalling such a false conjecture, you can understand what I meant by seeing my last example, i.e. the Euler's function.