The first reference of Voronin's article is false; nothing on the Lindelöf hypothesis is in "Le calcul des résidus et ses applications à la théorie des fonctions". And this is obvious: Lindelöf 's book publish date is 1905, and the Lindelöf 's artticle on the hypothesis is "Quelques remarques sur la croissance de la fonction zêta(s)", Bull. des sciences mathématiques, série 2, vol. 32, 1908. Claude Henri Picard
- Thank you! We'll think. Be welcome. And please sign your messages (on talk pages) by four tildas: ~~~~. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2014 (CET)
- Would you like to correct the article yourself (by replacing the wrong reference, or/and otherwise)?
- And by the way, S.Albeverio and Y.Cheng (and J.Wang?) claim to prove this hypothesis (arXiv:1010.3374; rumored to be submitted to Acta Arithmetica 2013). Any comments? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2014 (CET)
- The criticism seems to be correct: the book of Edwards states that the hypothesis was enunciated in the 1908 paper. As far as Arxiv papers are concerned, I think it important to be circumspect: the authors may well wish to revise or even retract their claim until it is verified by peer-review. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2014 (CET)
Lindelöf hypothesis. Encyclopedia of Mathematics. URL: http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Lindel%C3%B6f_hypothesis&oldid=35469