## June 10, 2004

### Proving Riemann with style

I can't claim to understand precisely what the Riemann Hypothesis is about (zeta function blah blah blah), but I know enough about the history of mathematics to know this it was the biggest outstanding problem in the field. What's more, I know enough about people to know that Louis de Branges de Bourcia, the Purdue University mathematician who has apparently arrived at a successful proof for it, it both a genius and a really interesting guy (and probably a lot richer soon). But why do mathematician have to apologize for solving things? Ignoring all the funny symbols, it's a great read.

Posted by jay at June 10, 2004 03:13 PM
| TrackBack

Comment spammers: see our Unauthorized Advertising Policy and rates
Mathematicians don't apologize for anything -- I'd've though you'd've worked that out by now, Jay :)

From reference.com:

apology

2a. A formal justification or defense.

Also, it seems this guy has offered several incorrect proofs in the past, so I'll wait for the peer review. Nonetheless, the PDF makes for an interesting history of the subject (even if you ignore the equations).

Oh, David David David... when will you learn to recognize that winking tone I use when I sweetly feign ignorance? I'd've thought you'd've have worked that out by now! But thanks for the educational tidbit.

To wit, I used "apology," or rather its correct Latin plural "apologiae," in this post on the VA site.

You really must learn to submit to your husband on the category "Literary Terms," or risk enduring lots of lectures from me on statistics!