Timeline for Why is so much work done on numerical verification of the Riemann Hypothesis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 16 at 12:43 | comment | added | Yaakov Baruch | @AlexM. or perhaps a twin, born one minute earlier? | |
| Mar 23, 2019 at 20:07 | comment | added | Alex M. | @user1728, are you an alias of user1729 (who also commented above)? | |
| Mar 22, 2019 at 17:24 | vote | accept | Hollis Williams | ||
| Mar 21, 2019 at 20:57 | comment | added | user1728 | @Nell I looked at the paper at numbers.computation.free.fr/Constants/Miscellaneous/… and you're correct: while they did a confirmation of the main calculation by adjusting some free parameters and redoing it again to find the same number of zeros in various locations as they found the first time, they admit at the end of Section 1.1 that the only way to verify the calculation is to do it all a second time (unlike integer factorization, for which success can be checked by direct multiplication). They say their work is not a strict mathematical proof. | |
| Mar 21, 2019 at 17:49 | comment | added | Nell | One caveat: it is my impression that the check that goes the farthest ($10^{13}$ zeros) is more in the nature of an empirical check, rather than a rigorous proof that all of the first $10^{13}$ zeros do lie on the critical line. It's still valid experimental evidence towards RH, but I would not use this particular verification in a proof. | |
| Mar 21, 2019 at 16:45 | history | edited | user1728 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 725 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2019 at 16:33 | history | edited | user1728 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 725 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2019 at 16:15 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 21, 2019 at 16:25 | |||||
| Mar 21, 2019 at 16:14 | history | answered | user1728 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |