Talk:De Bruijn–Newman constant

Which function is the certain function H mentioned in the article?undefined&mdash;undefinedPt(T) 29 June 2005 11:45 (UTC)

Mistake
I'm not a mathematician, but I feel there's an error in the article:


 * who first estimated it would be Λ ≥ 0

So Λ is greater than 0 (because it is not said Newman was wrong). But then there is a table about the lower bound on Λ, with all the bounds lower than 0, what makes no sense, to me.

It can be a mistake or a bad explanation, but something must be arranged.

--Viktor 10:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not a mistake; mathematicians are a strange kind of people to which this makes perfect sense. --Lambiam 11:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a mistake, but has been corrected since ("conjectured" instead of "estimated"). --91.32.64.194 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeline
The curious inversion with 1994 before 1993 in the table is not a mistake. The 1994 article by Csordas et al. was written before but published after the 1993 article, also by Csordas et (a smaller gang of) al. Lambiam 11:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

de or De?
A curious fact: people really want to accommodate the Dutch and their strange conventions by using a lower-case letter d, but I have it from reliable (native Dutch) sources who unanimously insist that the Dutch themselves would write "De Bruijn-Newman-constante" with a capital D. The same reliable sources have, on the other hand, been left in utter confusion by the last spelling reform on where to put or delete spaces and/or hyphens in this designation, but that is a quandary that need not concern us here. Lambiam 11:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that they write a capital "D" when it's at the beginning of a sentence and a lower-case "d" otherwise? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

arXiv: "The De Bruijn-Newman constant is non-negative"
Brad Rodgers, Terence Tao: The De Bruijn-Newman constant is non-negative. Secondary sources should follow soon, but based on the authors the submission itself should be relevant already. --mfb (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This proof is now known to be true, just like the other proofs for the lower bound of Λ (e.g. −2.7×10−9 in 2000) —— xayahrainie43, 2018. 09. 22
 * That did not age well. 2A00:1370:812C:5CBF:C839:656E:E930:2CDB (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha. Yes. There is also this simplification https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05142 109.252.171.205 (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)