Riemann hypothesis proved by Luis de Branges?
Stein A. Stromme
Right now I'm leafing through a 42-page paper by Luis de Branges
titled "A proof of the Riemann Hyptothesis". There is also a 23-page
companion "Apology for the proof of the Riemann hypothesis",
containing some autobiography and history of the problem.
My research field is far removed from de Branges' (my mathematical
ability even more so :-). Given the importance of the problem, I find
it strange that there has been no comment on s.m.r. What is the word
of the analysis experts? de Branges had some difficulty getting his
proof of the Bieberbach conjecture accepted, as I recall.
--
Stein A. Stromme --- Matematisk institutt, Universitetet i Bergen
epost: str...@mi.uib.no telefon: 5558 4825 telefax: 5558 9672
Benjamin Lotto
What are the dates on the manuscripts? If this is recent, I'd like to see
a copy.
In article <wwram8k...@wessel.mi.uib.no>, str...@mi.uib.no (Stein A.
Stromme) wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Lotto *
Department of Mathematics * e-mail: bel...@vassar.edu
Vassar College, Box 349 * phone: 914-437-7180
124 Raymond Avenue * fax: 914-437-7065
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 *
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WWW: <http://math.vassar.edu/faculty/lotto/lotto.html>
My PGP public key can be found on my WWW page.
Timothy Chow
> My research field is far removed from de Branges' (my mathematical
> ability even more so :-). Given the importance of the problem, I find
> it strange that there has been no comment on s.m.r. What is the word
> of the analysis experts? de Branges had some difficulty getting his
> proof of the Bieberbach conjecture accepted, as I recall.
The reason he had trouble with the Bieberbach conjecture was that he had
frequently announced proofs of difficult problems (the invariant subspace
problem is another example) but most of the time the proofs turned out to
be wrong. This is far from the only purported proof of the Riemann
hypothesis that de Branges has produced.
This does not mean, of course, that the proof is wrong. But it does mean
that it can take some time before an expert in the field summons up enough
energy to check his proof carefully.
--
Tim Chow tc...@umich.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons. ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949