It's not clear to me what could be undecideable about the original proposition; either the continuation matches at the points in question, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, how is it a continuation?
Enlightenment welcome.
Maybe this line of argument fixes the flaws in the original BBM paper in some way - I'm not qualified to comment - but I sort of doubt it.
[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02644 [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2211278/riemann-hyp...
That being said, it would be kind of narratively satisfying if Riemann is undecidable. There are many novel theorems from the past two decades which are conditionally true assuming Riemann is true. Riemann itself has become a useful technique for conditionally proving new theorem. If Riemann is undecidable, it would imply a great deal of mathematics has been developed which compartmentalizes the undecidability of other theorems. ______________________
1. https://mathoverflow.net/questions/79685/can-the-riemann-hyp...
However, the paper is clearly a serious attempt by someone inside academia who works in quantum computing, which is a related and heavily mathematical field.
You may have just given me a few hours of weekend reading material. :)