According to Wikipedia [ and probably his own website, but I have a hard time seeing exactly what he's claiming ] Louis de Branges has claimed, numerous times, to have proved the Riemann Hypothesis; but clearly few people believe him.

However, whether or not you believe him, his arguments presumably should prove somethingeven if not the full RH. Are there any theorems related to the Riemann Hypothesis and similar problems, arising from Louis De Branges Riemann Hypothesis work, which have been fully accepted by the mathematical community and published or at least submitted?

The paper by Conrey and Li "A note on some positivity conditions related to zeta and L-functions" http: They describe a correct theorem about entire functions due to de Branges, which has a corollary that certain positivity conditions would imply the Riemann hypothesis.

Louis de Branges de Bourcia (born August 21, Journalist Karl Sabbagh, who in had written a book on the Riemann Hypothesis centered on de Branges. APOLOGY FOR THE PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS Louis de Branges Abstract. An apology is an explanation or defense of actions which may otherwise be. What, exactly, has Louis de Branges proved about the Riemann Hypothesis? up vote 34 down vote favorite. Hi, Questions on de Branges' work on the Riemann. Louis de Branges. Title: Edward C. Elliott Distinguished Professor of Mathematics ; Research Interests: complex analysis, Fourier analysis, functional analysis. Louis de Branges is a mathematician at Purdue who has had a long history of claiming proofs of the Riemann hypothesis. His latest claim has lead to a press release.

However Conrey and Li show that these positivity conditions are not satisfied Louis De Branges Riemann Hypothesis the case of the Riemann hypothesis. So the answer is that de Branges has proved theorems in this area that are accepted, and his work on the Riemann Louis De Branges Riemann Hypothesis has been checked and found to contain a serious gap.

At least the version of several years ago has a gap; I think he may have produced updated versions, but at some point people lose interest in checking every new version. By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service. Questions Tags Users Badges Unanswered. MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians.

Join them; it only takes a minute: Here's how it works: Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. What, exactly, has Louis de Branges proved about the Riemann Hypothesis?

Source, I know this is a dangerous topic which could attract many cranks and nutters, but: So, my question is: Zen Harper 1, 2 14 Second, I've heard that Lagarias looked at the approach some years back. Presumably it was found wanting then. I took the liberty of editing out the second question, which asks about what people believe.

What remains seems to me an interesting and appropriate question, and I hope it can remain open. Clark Sep 8 '10 at I don't see why it's "subjective" or "argumentative" - if de Branges is really the only person who believes it and everyone else disbelieves, that's not really "subjective" I think.

If others believe, I want to know who! One mathematician claims to have proved RH, and almost all other mathematicians remain silent. What is going on here?! When I did a Google search, I found almost all stuff was written by journalists or other people with little mathematical understanding.

How can Mathematics progress in this fashion? Have the courage to express your opinions!! Dear Zen, It is not a question of having courage.

Rather, mathematics is a profession in which the practitioners are sticking their necks out time and time again: For this reason, people in the profession are always reluctant to be publicly critical of other's work, even if they are unsure continue reading it.

There but for the grace of God Zen, let me preface my comment by pointing out that a I am far from an expert and b I am not a neutral observer we are in the same dept. You are of course free to give the silence any interpretation you wish.

My own is perhaps a bit less dark: So if you are strongly interested in this Louis De Branges Riemann Hypothesis, perhaps you can start reading through this stuff and ask technical questions here as and when you get stuck. But that paper is from ; is there anything more up-to-date? I think he's made more recent updated claims and "proofs" around and Although, as you say, it's easy to see why people are reluctant to spend too much time checking his stuff in detail; especially since his writing style is not the clearest to follow.

I've accepted this answer since it's reasonable enough and probably the best we can hope for. The link to the paper by Lagarias has expired. What was the paper? In general, I feel that links to articles in MathOverflow posts should for preference be accompanied by written journal references for precisely this reason.

Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name.

## Riemann Hypothesis - Numberphile

MathOverflow works best with JavaScript enabled. First, I vote for this to stay open, though it might benefit from a bit more editing but not by me. Note that Li was a student of de Branges graduated in '