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