Timeline for What is the definition of the function T used in Atiyah's attempted proof of the Riemann Hypothesis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 11, 2020 at 3:28 | history | edited | Wilem2 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 227 characters in body
|
| Sep 26, 2018 at 5:07 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @T_M would you add an answer here linking to your answer on M.SE? Then the OP can accept it and we can all do something else. | |
| Sep 26, 2018 at 0:12 | comment | added | SBK | If anyone is interested I checked again and wrote up the Redditor's proof on Math.SE as an answer to this question math.stackexchange.com/questions/2930742/… | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 21:46 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @Jose to reiterate, the function T is defined in the fine structure constant paper as being as isomorphism from C to itself, hence the domain is all of C. | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 8:33 | comment | added | Jose Brox | @DavidRoberts As I understand that particular issue, from the step function analogy given in the preprint, I think that Atiyah is asking for analiticity on every compact set of its domain, not all compact sets of $\mathbb{C}$. I don't know if the analogy is good enough, but the step function is indeed polynomial in each of the compact sets contained in its domain, without being polynomial | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 7:30 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Moreover, someone has shown that (some of) the properties assumed of $T$ in the RH notes make it the constant function at $1$, certainly not an isomorphism as 'defined' in the fine structure constant notes. | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 11:11 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | you might want to check the comments by David Roberts in the OP for why this is not really a "definition" | |
| Sep 24, 2018 at 11:04 | history | answered | Wilem2 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |