Jump to content

Riemann Hypothesis.


Brett Nortj

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Brett Nortj said:

{\displaystyle \zeta (s)=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{n^{s}}}={\frac {1}{1^{s}}}+{\frac {1}{2^{s}}}+{\frac {1}{3^{s}}}+\cdots }

This would be [infinity] * [2n] = [3] * [2] = [6] * [x]

Then, [5] * [2] = [10] * [x]

Then, [7] * [2] = [14] * [x]

So, the  answer is double prime times by [x].

Or,

[N] * [2] *[X].

OK, I'll bite what is x?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The wrong version, never mind please try again... :o

[X] would be the indent on the log?

Look, I have always struggled with logarithms, but I know I have something going here.

Why don't you take a shot? Nothing to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

[X] would be the indent on the log?

Look, I have always struggled with logarithms, but I know I have something going here.

Why don't you take a shot? Nothing to lose.

You struggle with logarithms but want to solve the Riemann hypothesis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

X does neither.

It depends on the X. Maybe it was a very brilliant X. I admit I did not bother to read far enough into the OP to discover what it means. I trust that you investigated and determined that the X is actually kind of stupid. Note taken.

Maybe he just has some questions about logarithms or RH.

I will attempt to elucidate. The "natural logarithm" function \( \ln, \) or nowadays mostly written \( \log,\) can be conveniently defined by \[ \ln(x) := \int_1^x \frac{1}{t} dt \] for any positive real number \(x.\)

Then \( \ln(1) = 0\) is obvious by definition, and using standard substitution of variables in the Riemann integral, you can easily deduce basic properties, such as  \( \ln(ab) = \ln(a) + \ln(b) \) for all \( a,b > 0, \) as well as \( \ln(a^b) = b \ln(a), \) for all \(a > 0\) and all \(b.\) 

To formulate the Riemann Hypothesis in terms of logarithms it also helps to know about primes. I will wait for the OP to indicate whether this is the intention before I go on to explain about primes.

 

Edited by taeto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, taeto said:

It depends on the X. Maybe it was a very brilliant X. I admit I did not bother to read far enough into the OP to discover what it means. I trust that you investigated and determined that the X is actually kind of stupid. Note taken.

Maybe he just has some questions about logarithms or RH.

I will attempt to elucidate. The "natural logarithm" function ln,  or nowadays mostly written log, can be conveniently defined by 

ln(x):=x11tdt

for any positive real number x.

 

Then ln(1)=0 is obvious by definition, and using standard substitution of variables in the Riemann integral, you can easily deduce basic properties, such as  ln(ab)=ln(a)+ln(b) for all a,b>0, as well as ln(ab)=bln(a), for all a>0 and all b.  

To formulate the Riemann Hypothesis in terms of logarithms it also helps to know about primes. I will wait for the OP to indicate whether this is the intention before I go on to explain about primes.

 

Okay, seems to be right to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then: primes. 

Formally a natural number \(p\) is called "prime" if \(p > 1\) and it is true that if you take any integer numbers \(a\) and \(b,\) and \(p\) divides the product \(ab\), then \(p\) divides \(a\) or \(b.\)

The first primes are \(2,3,5,7,11,13,\) and then there are some more larger ones as well.

The "primorial" \(p\#\) of a prime \(p\) is the product \(2\times 3 \times 5 \times 7 \times 11 \times \cdots \times p\) of all the primes \(2,3,5,7,11,...,p.\)

The "Euler totient function" \(\varphi\) is a more complicated function, but all you have to worry about is its value at primorial \(p\#,\) which is simply the product \( \varphi(p\#) = 1 \times 2 \times 4 \times 6 \times 10 \times \cdots \times (p-1)\) of all numbers less by 1 than a prime up to \(p.\)

This is enough that you have to know, before you can meaningfully consider the Riemann Hypothesis. 

The Riemann Hypothesis is logically equivalent to the following statement:

\[ \frac{p\#}{\varphi(p\#) \ln \ln p\#} > e^\gamma, \]

for all primes \(p,\) where \(\gamma\) is known as the Euler-Mascheroni constant, with \[ \gamma := \int_1^\infty (\frac{1}{\lfloor x \rfloor} - \frac{1}{x}) dx \approx 0.577\ldots, \] where the value of the floor function \( \lfloor x \rfloor \) is the largest integer that is not greater than \(x.\) 

Reference: J. Nicolas, Petites valeurs de la fonction d’Euler, J. Number Theory 17, 3, 1983, pp. 375–388.

 

Edited by taeto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, taeto said:

Okay then: primes. 

Formally a natural number p is called "prime" if p>1 and it is true that if you take any integer numbers a and b, and p divides the product ab , then p divides a or b.

The first primes are 2,3,5,7,11,13, and then there are some more larger ones as well.

The "primorial" p# of a prime p is the product 2×3×5×7×11××p of all the primes 2,3,5,7,11,...,p.

The "Euler totient function" φ is a more complicated function, but all you have to worry about is its value at primorial p#, which is simply the product φ(p#)=1×2×4×6×10××(p1) of all numbers less by 1 than a prime up to p.

This is enough that you have to know, before you can meaningfully consider the Riemann Hypothesis. 

The Riemann Hypothesis is logically equivalent to the following statement:p#φ(p#)lnlnp#>eγ,

for all primes p, where γ is known as the Euler-Mascheroni constant, with

γ:=1(1x1x)dx0.577,

where the value of the floor function x is the largest integer that is not greater than x.  

 

Reference: J. Nicolas, Petites valeurs de la fonction d’Euler, J. Number Theory 17, 3, 1983, pp. 375–388.

 

Well, it was I that wrote the script on primes, namely; [n] = {[n] + [n] +1}.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2018 at 12:24 PM, Brett Nortj said:

{\displaystyle \zeta (s)=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{n^{s}}}={\frac {1}{1^{s}}}+{\frac {1}{2^{s}}}+{\frac {1}{3^{s}}}+\cdots }

This would be [infinity] * [2n] = [3] * [2] = [6] * [x]

Then, [5] * [2] = [10] * [x]

Then, [7] * [2] = [14] * [x]

So, the  answer is double prime times by [x].

Or,

[N] * [2] *[X].

I prefer this version
There was a young man from Nepal
Who had one triangular ball
The square of its weight
Times his pecker, times eight
Is his number, so give him a call

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I prefer this version
There was a young man from Nepal
Who had one triangular ball
The square of its weight
Times his pecker, times eight
Is his number, so give him a call

Definite +1 for an on-topic Limerick, good work! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.