De Branges and the Riemann Hypothesis

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In June 2023, mathematician Louis de Branges published a proposed proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) in a 128-page document available at http://www.math.purdue.edu/~branges/riemannzeta.pdf. Despite de Branges' previous success with the Bieberbach Conjecture, his attempts to prove the RH have been met with skepticism from the mathematical community. Notably, Conrey and Li have demonstrated that de Branges' approach is flawed and will not work on the Zeta function, as detailed in their paper on arXiv titled "A Note on some positivity conditions related to zeta and L-functions."

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Riemann Hypothesis
  • Familiarity with the Zeta function
  • Knowledge of the Bieberbach Conjecture
  • Basic comprehension of mathematical proofs and peer review processes
NEXT STEPS
  • Read Louis de Branges' proposed proof of the Riemann Hypothesis
  • Study Conrey & Li's paper on arXiv regarding Zeta functions
  • Explore the implications of the Bieberbach Conjecture in modern mathematics
  • Investigate other attempts to prove the Riemann Hypothesis and their critiques
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, researchers in number theory, and students interested in the Riemann Hypothesis and its implications in mathematical research.

Castilla
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
In June of this year the mathematician Louis de Branges published in Internet a proposed "proof" of the Riemann Hypothesis. The page is:

http://www.math.purdue.edu/~branges/riemannzeta.pdf

Years ago De Branges proved the Bieberbach Conjecture. He has tried several times to proof the RH, always failing. For that reason their peers do not take seriously his last atempt.

Anyway, maybe someone of you know something more about this?? Maybe the "proof" hanged in the web (128 pages long) has been already discarded, with mathematical reasons? :confused:

Regards,
Castilla.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it's been discarded. His most recent release doesn't appear any different than it's last incarnation. His intended approach is also known to be flawed, Conrey & Li showed it won't work on the Zeta function. (their paper lives on ArXiV, "A Note on some positivity conditions related to zeta and L-functions if you're interested)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
10K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K