WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – A Purdue University mathematician claims to have proven the Riemann hypothesis, often dubbed the greatest unsolved problem in mathematics.

Louis De Branges de Bourcia, or de Branges (de BRONZH) as he prefers to be called, has posted a 23-page paper (http://www.math.purdue.edu/~branges/) detailing his attempt at a proof on his university Web page. While mathematicians ordinarily announce their work at formal conferences or in scientific journals, the spirited competition to prove the hypothesis – which carries a $1 million prize for whomever accomplishes it first – has encouraged de Branges to announce his work as soon as it was completed.

:m: Peace.

I don't think this is the first time he's made this claim. Still, he's got the Bieberbach conjecture under his belt (actually something slightly more general), so he isn't to be taken lightly.

I don't think this is the first time he's made this claim. Still, he's got the Bieberbach conjecture under his belt (actually something slightly more general), so he isn't to be taken lightly.
I can't figure out if he is making a new claim or not. I mean, the link provided only shows this "apology of the proof of the riemann hypothesis" which is not new. People were talking about it on s.m.r in 96. and anyway, it's not a proof, it's a history lesson.

did you look at the link to his website? do you see his proof? maybe i'm just an idiot and missed it, but as far as i could tell, there was no proof. maybe the reporter who wrote this article is just 8 years behind the times

I've just quickly skimmed his "apology". Did he release this same document in '96? I know he claimed a proof around then. The "apology" on his website now is dated 2003 (does this count as new?), and mentions the million dollar prize. I can't recall if the riemann hyp. had such a prize before the clay institute in 2000. If he really claimed to have a proof of RH a year ago that was taken seriously, it would have turned up in the Notices by now, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on.

I'll try to have a look at the rest of his website.

I've just quickly skimmed his "apology".

yeah, as far as i can tell, there is no original mathematics in the apology. just history lessons.

Did he release this same document in '96? I know he claimed a proof around then. The "apology" on his website now is dated 2003 (does this count as new?), and mentions the million dollar prize. I can't recall if the riemann hyp. had such a prize before the clay institute in 2000.
no, i suppose you are right, the Clay Math problems were all from 2000, so this document cannot be from 96.

Nevertheless, I saw people mentioning this document on Usenet posts from 96. so this must be a new document from 2003 with the same title as a document from 96. perhaps he just updated the document to add stuff about the Clay Math Prize?

see the discussion for yourself (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22de+branges%22+group:sci.math.*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=wwram8k5jl.fsf%40wessel.mi.uib.no&rnum=1)

this posting from 96 mentions both the apology, and the proof. today i see only the apology, and no proof.

If he really claimed to have a proof of RH a year ago that was taken seriously, it would have turned up in the Notices by now, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on.

You would think so, wouldn't you? this is making me rather suspicious that the whole thing is at best just a case of gross error on the part of some journalist

There doesn't actually seem to be anything substantial to this claim. From http://mathworld.wolfram.com/

"Riemann Hypothesis "Proof" Much Ado About Noithing
A June 8 Purdue University news release reports a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis by L. de Branges. However, both the 23-page preprint cited in the release (which is actually from 2003) and a longer preprint from 2004 on de Branges's home page seem to lack an actual proof. Furthermore, a counterexample to de Branges's approach due to Conrey and Li has been known since 1998. The media coverage therefore appears to be much ado about nothing. "


So maybe le Branges is to be taken lightly :bugeye:.