07/18/2022, 11:30 PM
(07/18/2022, 10:15 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: The paper relies on the initial paper with him and Cowgill. In that paper they reconstruct Kneser on \(b > \eta\). From that point, the paper I linked he analytically continues in \(b\). The paper with Cowgill is more indepth, and the one I linked is a little loose.
Yeah, I think I read the one with Cowgill. But I think we really must be specific here:
They have a numerical method, that is not proven to converge (though it practically seems to).
Then they have in the paper with Cowgill a uniqueness proof.
But with a numerical method, that is not proven to converge, you can not claim that it satisfies any (uniqueness) criterion.
And what does it mean to analytically continue? It just means the calculated plots look good.
(Correct me if I am wrong!)
Sheldons method is insofar as good as theirs (though maybe he had a problem with some bases if I remember), and other methods that have a good looking plot for complex bases. But Sheldon, was already close about a proof of convergence of his method, so in the race he is my favourite
. And you were also close to a proof of your method, if I remember! So what happened with that?!
