Maybe.

https://www.sciencealert.com/top-mathematician-sir-michael-atiyah-solved-a-160-year-old-1-million-maths-problem-riemann-hypothesis

It seems he used magic:

“The proof of RH in section 3 looks deceptively easy, even magical, so in this section I will
look behind the scenes and explain the magic. Clearly the function T is the secret key that
unlocks the doors, so I must explain its secret.”

The paper is surprisingly short, and almost readable:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17NBICP6OcUSucrXKNWvzLmrQpfUrEKuY/view

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems he used magic:

NSW selective school students are in luck then, apparently that’s what they use as well

It seems not everyone is that impressed with the “proof”

Now that he’s officially presented it, is Atiyah’s proof of the Riemann Hypothesis likely to stand up to scrutiny?
Alon Amit, PhD in Mathematics; Mathcircler.

Answered Tue

No, I’m afraid not. Atiyah did not present a proof of RH; he presented a four-line argument which, unfortunately, has manifestly nothing to do with the Riemann zeta function.

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems he used magic:

“The proof of RH in section 3 looks deceptively easy, even magical, so in this section I will
look behind the scenes and explain the magic. Clearly the function T is the secret key that
unlocks the doors, so I must explain its secret.”

The paper is surprisingly short, and almost readable:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17NBICP6OcUSucrXKNWvzLmrQpfUrEKuY/view

I agree that it’s startlingly short and almost readable. Unfortunately all I understand is that he’s mapped complex space onto itself in such a way that the critical strip and the critical line are mapped onto themselves. I can understand what a “weakly analytic function” is from the description. The contradiction is that if there’s a Riemann zero off the critical line then there would have to be a function that is both twice itself and nonzero, which is impossible.