Riemann hypothesis may have been solved!

[gsaldivar]

Usually, mathematicians announce such breakthroughs at conferences or in scientific journals. Finding a solution to the Riemann hypothesis, however, carries a $1 million prize, so he decided to publish early.

"I invite other mathematicians to examine my efforts," said de Branges in a prepared statement. "While I will eventually submit my proof for formal publication, due to the circumstances I felt it necessary to post the work on the Internet immediately."

The origins of the hypothesis date back to 1859, when mathematician Bernhard Riemann came up with a theory about how prime numbers were distributed, but he died in 1866 before he could conclusively prove it.

Since then, the problem has attracted a cult following. John Nash, the Nobel Prize-winning mathematician whose life was chronicled in the book and movie "A Beautiful Mind," attempted to solve it. In 2001, the Clay Mathematics Institute in Cambridge, Mass., offered a $1 million purse for proving it.

LINK 1

LINK 2

The last paragraph of the 23-page proof is interesting...

"...The ruin of the chateau de Bourcia overlooks a fertile valley surrounded by wooded hills. The site is ideal for a mathematical research institute. The restoration of the chateau for that purpose would be an appropriate use of the million dollars offered for a proof of the Riemann hypothesis."

 

[eigen]

No fscking way. I was going to most my proof today . damn.

If its sound then this is one kick ass day.

 

[eigen]

double post

 

[Mark R]

From what I understand, this attempt was disproved in 1998.

The hypothesis has thus far resisted all attempts to prove it. In the late 1940s, H. Rademacher's erroneous proof of the falsehood of Riemann's hypothesis was reported in Time magazine, even after a flaw in the proof had been unearthed by Siegel (Borwein and Bailey 2003, p. 97; Conrey 2003). de Branges has written a number of papers discussing the Riemann hypothesis (de Branges 1986, 1992, 1994) and claiming to prove the Riemann hypothesis (de Branges 2003, 2004; Boutin 2004), but no actual proofs seem to be present in these papers. Furthermore, Conrey and Li (1998) prove a counterexample to de Branges's approach, which essentially means that theory developed by de Branges is not viable.

Wolfram Mathworld

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Mark R
From what I understand, this attempt was disproved in 1998.

The hypothesis has thus far resisted all attempts to prove it. In the late 1940s, H. Rademacher's erroneous proof of the falsehood of Riemann's hypothesis was reported in Time magazine, even after a flaw in the proof had been unearthed by Siegel (Borwein and Bailey 2003, p. 97; Conrey 2003). de Branges has written a number of papers discussing the Riemann hypothesis (de Branges 1986, 1992, 1994) and claiming to prove the Riemann hypothesis (de Branges 2003, 2004; Boutin 2004), but no actual proofs seem to be present in these papers. Furthermore, Conrey and Li (1998) prove a counterexample to de Branges's approach, which essentially means that theory developed by de Branges is not viable.

Wolfram Mathworld

He's spent the last 20 years trying to prove it. If I had to place a wager, I'd be betting that he's got it right this time. This isn't something like the crackpots claiming they've cloned humans... this proof is coming from someone who has done some incredible work in mathematics in the past.

Did anyone else notice his webpage has been taken down at Purdue? I wonder if it's just temporary? I was looking at some of his other work yesterday that he had in pdf form on his homepage.

 

[Steve]

I think he forgot to carry the two.

 

[Savarak]

why does he call it an "apology" for the proof???