http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=394892

Louis de Branges has made a critical error… he has tried to solve the Riemann hypothesis.  The problem is not so much that the Riemann hypothesis has remained unsolved since it was proposed in 1859 but more a human problem.  When a problem of this grandeur survives for such a long time it takes on a life of its own.  It is almost like Hank Aaron beating Babe Ruth’s record;  he was more hated for his accomplishment than admired.  The Riemann hypothesis is something like this… attempts to prove it are met with more derision and hatred than curiosity and exploration.

It’s no wonder than that de Branges titles his paper:  “Apology for the Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis“.  Admittedly, he has claimed to have solved the hypothesis before and has been proven wrong.  Just the same, he has successfully proven the Bieberbach Conjecture some 20 years ago winning him much accolade.  I think as such, he’s earned the tenure to make a few flubs without being dismissed as the mathematician who cried wolf.

This points to the basic human problem in the maths which isn’t getting much press.  A proof is offered by an individual, it is accepted or shot down, the end.  I see little evidence of teamwork.  In many failed proofs, there are parts which can be reused as building blocks for other proofs.  The maths are too much, in my mind, an individualistic science with people seeking too much fame and too little truth.  I speak from experience as I myself have published several proofs of the related Twin Prime Conjecture.

Here they are:

Prime Constellations
http://members.tele2.nl/galien8/twins/twins.html
http://www.rankyouragent.com/primes/primes_simple.htm
http://www.rankyouragent.com/primes/primes.htm

The proofs were met with such skepticism that I was never able to get a valid criticism as to the merits or failings.  I was dismissed out of hand as a neophyte know nothing who couldn’t possibly be right.  So much of perception is based on vantage point.  Because the Riemann Hypothesis perceived as unsolvable, it becomes actually unsolvable due to human error of parallax.

My mistake was slightly different than de Brange’s  I made an error in offering too simple a solution.  I didn’t say that my solution was incorrect mind you, just too simple.  When a grand problem survives this long, it’s answer must be 200 pages long.  This is the case with Andrew Wiles’ solution of the epic ‘Fermat’s Final Theorem’ which most experts agree couldn’t possibly be what Fermat himself had in mind when he scribbled ‘remarkable proof’ in the margins of his notebook.  I think it is likely that even though Fermat’s Final Theorem has been proved to the satisfaction of all mathematicians, the nugget of simple beauty that Fermat had in mind is likely yet to be filled in by some future mathematician on a few short sheets of paper.

This brings me to the final point regarding math and proofs of grandeous problems.  No one will be looking for the golden nugget of simplicity in Fermat’s Final Theorem or any others.  Seeking of fame rather than truth has corrupted mathematics.  The Riemann Hypothesis is intimately tied in with Quantum Physics.  If we only seek to prove it true or false, I fear we’ll miss crucial nuggets of beauty which could elucidate our understanding of the universe.