Archive for January, 2013

Cours Peccot

January 25, 2013

Each year since 1900, the french Fondation Claude-Antoine Peccot picks between 1 and 3 mathematicians under the age of 30 who have already made important advances, and gives them the opportunity to give a few lectures on their research topics, the so-called Cours Peccot  (either at Collège de France, or at École Normale Supérieure).

The list of previous lecturers is basically a who’s who of french mathematics (plus a few non-french lecturers too, from time to time).  Since the most recent lecturers don’t appear on the list yet, here’s what I could reconstruct. I’ve added a link to lecture webpages or handouts when they exist (feel free to mention mistakes if I’ve made any):

2002: Denis Auroux. Thierry Bodineau.
2003: Franck Barthe. Cédric Villani.
2004: Laurent Fargues. Laure Saint-Raymond.
2005: Artur Avila. Stefaan Vaes.
2006: Laurent Berger. Emmanuel Breuillard.
2007: Erwan Rousseau. Jérémie Szeftel.
2008: Karine Beauchard. Gaëtan Chenevier.
2009: Joseph Ayoub. Julien Dubédat.
2010: Antoine Touzé.
2011: Sylvain Arlot. Anne-Laure Dalibard.
2012: Alessio Figalli. Vincent Pilloni.
2013: Valentin Féray. Christophe Garban. Peter Scholze.
2014: François Charles. Nicolas Rougerie.
2015: Hugo Duminil-Copin. Gabriel Dospinescu.
2016: Nicolas Curien. Marco Robalo.



A new de Branges paper on RH (?)

January 19, 2013

Two months ago, Louis de Branges has released a seemingly new version of a paper (running 97 pages) on his approach to the Riemann Hypothesis. New ingredients seem to involve Fourier analysis on the r-adelic skew plane (section 4 page 72, defined using quaternions with r-adic coefficients), with the part on RH being section 6 page 95. There’s also an updated short description of his line of thought.

As discussed on MO, and on wikipedia, his previous attempts from the 90s had been found to contain a gap by Conrey and Li in 1998, while his 2004 paper, which received some attention at the time, got revised repeatedly up to 2009 without ever being published.

In 2006, Lagarias had looked at de Branges’ 90s approach, and reformulated RH in terms of the existence of certain de Branges spaces, outlining 3 possible approaches to construct them.

No idea if de Branges’ new paper is correct or not, hopefully someone knowledgeable will have a look at it, or least at the 2 pages of section 6 to see if it makes sense…