<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Comment on "Hamiltonian for the Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function" · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1704.02644/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1704.02644/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Comment on "Hamiltonian for the Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function" — mentioned by soVeryTired</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20003250</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1704.02644:20003250</guid><pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2019 16:41:22 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve been following the development of the Bender-Brody-Muller approach to the Riemann hypothesis because I knew one of the authors in a previous life. I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s taken that seriously by number theorists [0][1]. The paper was written by physicists, who sometimes play a little fast and loose with mathematical rigour. Maybe this line of argument fixes the flaws in the original BBM paper in some way - I&amp;#x27;m not qualified to comment - but I sort of doubt it. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02644 [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2211278/riemann-hyp...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1704.02644/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
