I've been following the development of the Bender-Brody-Muller approach to the Riemann hypothesis because I knew one of the authors in a previous life. I don't

I've been following the development of the Bender-Brody-Muller approach to the Riemann hypothesis because I knew one of the authors in a previous life. I don't think it's taken that seriously by number theorists [0][1]. The paper was written by physicists, who sometimes play a little fast and loose with mathematical rigour. Maybe this line of argument fixes the flaws in the original BBM paper in some way - I'm not qualified to comment - but I sort of doubt it. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02644 https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02644 [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2211278/riemann-hypothesis-is-bender-brody-m%C3%BCller-hamiltonian-a-new-line-of-attack https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2211278/riemann-hyp...