<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A novel approach to the Lindelöf hypothesis · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1708.06607/</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/1708.06607/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A novel approach to the Lindelöf hypothesis — mentioned by impendia</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17413787</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1708.06607:17413787</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2018 03:11:45 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Speaking as an analytic number theorist, the branch of math of which the Lindelof Hypothesis is part: This is a huge deal, if true. But USC&amp;#x27;s PR machine seems to have jumped the gun. The paper in question, found here https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.06607.pdf has so far only been posted to the arXiv (and only eight days ago). It has presumably not been subjected to any sort of peer review yet. No third party other than USC has announced the results. There&amp;#x27;s no chatter among my mathematician friends, or on the blogosphere. Fokas&amp;#x27;s results could be correct. If the community comes to a consensus that…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1708.06607/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.CA</category></item></channel></rss>
