Terence Tao says there is a problem with the proof.<p><a href="http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/structure-and-randomness-in-the-prime-numbers/#comment-30714" rel="nofollow">http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/structure-and-rando...</a>
He'll have to get in line. [<a href="http://secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/RHproofs.htm" rel="nofollow">http://secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/RHproo...</a>]<p>If you peruse the Number Theory papers on the arXiv, you'll see that there is a purported proof of the Riemann hypothesis every few weeks. So far, none of them have been vetted by a professional journal. I'd be very surprised (but happy) if this turned out to contain a correct proof.<p>A more interesting question would be "Why is this particular proof by this otherwise unknown author getting so much attention?"