

A proof of the Riemann hypothesis - lapenne
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0090

======
jlhamilton
Terence Tao says there is a problem with the proof.

[http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/structure-and-
rando...](http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/structure-and-randomness-
in-the-prime-numbers/#comment-30714)

------
antiform
He'll have to get in line.
[[http://secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/RHproo...](http://secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/RHproofs.htm)]

If you peruse the Number Theory papers on the arXiv, you'll see that there is
a purported proof of the Riemann hypothesis every few weeks. So far, none of
them have been vetted by a professional journal. I'd be very surprised (but
happy) if this turned out to contain a correct proof.

A more interesting question would be "Why is this particular proof by this
otherwise unknown author getting so much attention?"

~~~
brent
At least two answers to your question:

1) He authored <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%27s_criterion>

2) I believe some theorists have already looked at it and I haven't heard
anything negative [disclaimer: I'm far from an expert and wouldn't be able to
even agree or disagree with their analyses].

------
michael_dorfman
Anyone know enough math to be able to tell if this is a serious contender?

~~~
cperciva
This isn't my area, but I know enough to say that he speaks the right language
and builds on existing results in the field.

So I'd classify this as a serious contender... in the same sense as other
serious contenders have been put forward every 1-2 years for the past 50
years, only to be withdrawn after someone points out mistakes. I'd say that
it's almost certain that there are mistakes somewhere in this paper -- the
only question is whether they're serious flaws or just minor errors which can
be worked around.

