Timeline for Lindelöf hypothesis claim
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 2022 at 5:10 | answer | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 12:34 | answer | added | Carter | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 30, 2018 at 18:26 | comment | added | lcv | I also fail to see what are the (deep!) consequences for quantum computing (as claimed in the puff) :-) | |
| Jun 30, 2018 at 13:38 | answer | added | Alex Gavrilov | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 29, 2018 at 22:49 | comment | added | GH from MO | @SamHopkins: That colloquium talk was on March 29, that is, between versions 3 and 4 of his arXiv preprint (arxiv.org/abs/1708.06607). In version 3 he says "using the fact that [...] the lhs of (1.16) satisfies the Lindelöf hypothesis, it is possible to show that the Riemann zeta function satisfies the same hypothesis. [...] rigorous details are provided in [FKL]." In version 4 he says that "(1.6) suggests the validity of Lindelöf's hypothesis", and he no longer claims that the proof of the LH is forthcoming. | |
| Jun 29, 2018 at 22:37 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | I happened to attend this colloquium talk at UMass Amherst by Fokas in March 2018: math.umass.edu/calendar/distinguished-lecture/17401. During the talk he definitely claimed that the proof of the Lindelöf hypothesis was forthcoming (some parts joint with coauthors); apparent he had already achieved a "formal derivation" of LH in some sense but still needed more hard analytic work to rigorously verify this derivation. (I know nothing of this area so my memory/paraphrasing could be way off.) | |
| Jun 29, 2018 at 22:24 | history | edited | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags
|
| Jun 29, 2018 at 22:22 | comment | added | GH from MO | I agree with Robert Israel. The claims closest to the LH are (1.5)-(1.6) in the paper. In particular, if (1.6) is valid, then the LH is equivalent to the statement that that the real part of (1.7) is $O(t^\epsilon)$. It seems, however, that the proofs of (1.5)-(1.6) are not completed in this paper. See in particular the remarks on pp. 51-52: "in order to complete the rigorous derivation of (1.5) the following tasks are required" and "the completion of the rigorous justification of equation (1.6) requires the following". The last sentence suggests that these points will be addressed in [FKL]. | |
| Jun 29, 2018 at 13:23 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @RobertIsrael He certainly does claim it everywhere else, it seems :) | |
| Jun 29, 2018 at 6:22 | comment | added | Robert Israel | As I read it, the June 19 version does not appear to claim that he has proved the Lindelöf hypothesis. "Hence, since the above identity is valid for all $\epsilon$, this asymptotic identity suggests the validity of Lindelöf's hypothesis". | |
| Jun 29, 2018 at 5:21 | comment | added | Philippe Gaucher | @GerhardPaseman You could update Wikipedia yourself, that would take a few minutes :-), it's how Wikipedia works (I won't do that since I am not an expert of the domain and I know nothing about this problem). | |
| Jun 29, 2018 at 2:13 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | There is a revised Arxiv print of his dated June 19 2018. The truth is that Wikipedia does not update as quickly, and I imagine some are waiting for expert review. Gerhard "Puffs Wait For No One" Paseman, 2018.06.28. | |
| Jun 29, 2018 at 1:15 | history | asked | Igor Rivin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |