Possible Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis
Mathematics Wednesday, June 9, 2004 . This is a SciScoop post by mtigges
In poking here and there performing a little research on the matter, I turned up very little information on the mathematician de Bourcia. There are numerous mentions of him in various free online encyclopedias. They are all virtually the same, (from wikipedia):
Louis de Branges de Bourcia (born 1932) is a French mathematician.
De Branges was born in Paris, France. He lives in the USA and works at the Department of Mathematics of the Purdue
University in West Lafayette, IN.In 1985 he proved the Bieberbach conjecture.
The aforementioned ZDNet article mentions that de Bourcia has been working on the Riemann hypothesis since proving the Bieberbach conjecture. However, he writes in his “Apology…” that “the attack on the Riemann hypothesis begins in my doctoral thesis …”. It seems it has indeed been a life’s work.
Comment Form
About
SciScoop Science News is a forum for news, views and controversial conjectures. Please contact us if would like to submit a guest post.
SciScoop Top Authors
- Total posts: 3177
- David Bradley (416)
- Bunyip (35)
- Chad (85)
- Drog (407)
- DV8 2XL (25)
- Wayne Goode (69)
- Gpmap (27)
- Ricky James (1367)
- Mertero (22)
- Mtigges (34)
- AP Smith (171)
- Sweetwind (64)
9 Responses to Possible Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis
rickyjames
June 9th, 2004 at 7:28 pm
A post about possibly proving the Riemann Hypothesis at last right after a post about a cartoon called Peep And The Big Wide World. I love this site.
gypsysoul
June 9th, 2004 at 7:59 pm
… I UNDERSTOOD the PEEP post :-)
jxliv7
June 10th, 2004 at 10:42 am
.
I read the Peep post (which I think is NOT in line with the efforts/rationale of the SciScoop community) and I read the entire proof (or as de Bourcia calls it, “apology”) of the Riemann hypothesis. Fascinating.
I actually discovered what some of the relationships between the math studies I’d had in college (at Purdue!) or read about were. Again, fascinating!
jon
gypsysoul
June 10th, 2004 at 1:37 pm
See first FAQ. Answer stated here:
“SciScoop is a science news source and discussion forum for anyone interested in cutting-edge science and technology. We also gladly accept submissions on the topics of science fiction literature, film or television as well as offer occasional celebrity interviews. Sciscoop is a community where anyone interested in or directly involved with science or science fiction can interact with each other–discussing the latest book or film or television show episode, sharing their musings, their opinions, their thoughts and predictions, and most of all, their take on the latest science news and how it will affect our world.”
My two children are 28 and 17. However, if they were pre-schoolers, I’d love a scientist’s critique of PEEP.
“The efforts/rationale of the Sciscoop community”
is evidently a broader concept for some than it is for others.
I can tell you that RJ has a massive range of interests, and he also has fun with lighter fare from time to time. Cut the guy some slack!
barakn
June 10th, 2004 at 5:49 pm
… discovered a truly remarkable proof which this textbox is too small to contain.
Anonymous
June 11th, 2004 at 6:24 am
LOL
rickyjames
June 11th, 2004 at 2:22 pm
barakn = Fermat
Anonymous
June 12th, 2004 at 6:27 pm
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.
mtigges
June 12th, 2004 at 7:27 pm
I believe that the 1998 counterexample is to a 1997 possible proof that de Branges thought he had. He was wrong. The one reported in this article is new as of about 9 months ago. But you’re right the media attention is recent, and it has yet to be peer reviewed.