Talk:De Bruijn-Newman constant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which function is the certain function H mentioned in the article? — Pt _(T) 29 June 2005 11:45 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)