Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!russ From: russ@hao.UUCP (Russell K. Rew) Newsgroups: net.math Subject: Re: Riemann Hypothesis Message-ID: <1704@hao.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 21:51:07 EDT Article-I.D.: hao.1704 Posted: Tue Aug 20 21:51:07 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 20:52:06 EDT References: <3129@nsc.UUCP> Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 24 > Around the end of 1984, I had heard that someone was doing some final touches > on what they claimed was the resolving of the Riemann Hypothesis. Does > anyone know the status of the paper? It is still pending, or has a flaw > been found in the argument? > > chongo <> /\../\ Although I don't have the reference handy, there was an assertion that the Riemann hypothesis had recently been proved in one of the November or December 1984 issues of The New Scientist (a respectable British weekly periodical similar to but more comprehensive and opinionated than Science News). This appeared in a cover story "1984: The Golden Age of Mathematics," in which 1984 was proclaimed a great year for mathematics because three longstanding open questions were finally resolved: the Riemann hypothesis, Bieberbach's conjecture, and Merten's (sp?) conjecture. I remember that the article mentioned that the Riemann hypothesis had been proved by a Japanese mathematician in Paris, but that the proof had not yet been widely circulated, so that there was some skepticism about its validity. -- Russ Rew USENET: ...!hao!scd-sb!russ CSNET: russ@ncar