<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Notes on the Riemann Hypothesis · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1707.01770/</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/1707.01770/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Notes on the Riemann Hypothesis — mentioned by handle584</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49258714</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1707.01770:49258714</guid><pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 14:11:45 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The keyword is soon, so OP simply meant current generation of LLMs are not likely to prove RH, judging from the performance shown in the paper. Why? Because such explicit numerical improvements are not that interesting, which is best summed up in a review paper [0] of our efforts on RH spanning a century and a half, &amp;gt; The pathetic attempts to enlarge the ridiculous zero free region in the critical strip is a perfect example of what brute force can do without fully exploiting fundamental arithmetic aspects of the problem. (italic added) For outsiders, zero free region is another angle abundant…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1707.01770/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.HO</category></item></channel></rss>
