<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>On some reasons for doubting the Riemann hypothesis · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_0311162/</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/math_0311162/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>On some reasons for doubting the Riemann hypothesis — mentioned by rfurmani</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25648084</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:math_0311162:25648084</guid><pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2021 17:31:38 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s been a lot of research that has assumed it to be true and built on top of it to find deeper implications. Still, a number of people who&amp;#x27;ve worked most closely with the Riemann zeta function, even the ones who led the computations and numerical verifications, have expressed doubts on whether the Riemann Hypothesis is actually true: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0311162&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_0311162/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.NT</category></item></channel></rss>
