Keith Devlin has a non-technical article describing how the error was found: http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_03.html .
Math-funsters of more genteel sensibility should perhaps be advised that the cited page is also yet another inflammatory political polemic disguised as something else, in this case popular mathematical exposition. Though I'm quite interested in both the specific (twin prime) and general (proof) topics, Devlin's ill-advised--and wholly inaccurate--forced "right-wing versus left-wing" metaphor rendered the screed ultimately unreadable. Statements such as "And there you have the problem. Like right wing policies, for all that it appeals to individuals who crave certitude in life, the right wing definition of mathematical proof is an unrealistic ideal that does not survive the first contact with the real world. (Unless you have an army to impose it with force, an approach that mathematicians have hitherto shied away from.)" belie at best a tragic authorial incapacity to forbear freighting an arguably interesting essay with his irrelevant agenda. How can anyone so educated possibly mistake these (sadly all too prevalent) sort of incontinent digs for civilized intelligent discourse? Enough with the obsessive bias already. Please note that I have no intention of starting a political flame-war on this list, and have refrained from debating the specifics of Devlin's position. I just object to this kind of journalism. So, invitiating venting aside, I think it's merely fair play to balance his pulpit with this one obscure small voice in protest. Thanks as always for your estimable indulgence, Your Admiring Correspondent.