Jump to content
PeterJ

The Riemann Hypothesis

Recommended Posts

DrRocket - Could you have a break and let me talk to someone who might be helpful? There really is no point in deliberately trying to wind me up, and I don't want to get into trouble with the moderators.

 

If you could re-write that sentence of mine so that it is correct that would help.

 

Don't worry, I'll give you a chance to shoot down my ideas about the twin primes when I have time to go back and remind myself what they were and can start a thread.

 

I actually have been very helpful. It is pretty clear that I can't help you, but at least I can make it plain to innocent people who might read this thread that there is zero mathematical content in any of your posts.

 

You are so far out in left field spouting nothing but gibberish that there is simply no way to "correct your sentence".

 

To understand the linkage between the Riemann zeta function and prime numbers you might try reading the links that I posted earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did the read those links, thanks. The du Sautoy essay was excellent.

 

I'd like to stop talking gibberish about this but will have to continue until I understand it better. I'd have thought it would be quite easy to clear up my remaining misunderstandings, but apparently not. Seems I'll have to continue talking gibberish. Just don't blame me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a formal point of view, yes, what PeterJ is saying is nonsense; it literally makes no sense. But we are human beings, not robots and from a purely intuitive point of view, which I believe is clearly implied in all of PeterJ's posts, I don't think he is very far off; it sounds very much like what is being said here, and while I have nothing to compare the information there with, I'd be very surprised to find out it was complete nonsense.

So, DrRocket, from a intuitive, no-PhD-in-math point of view, is it correct? I would like to know myself; so far, I have looked at the Riemann hypothesis in the manner described in the aforementioned article. I would very much like to be alerted to the fact that it's all rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a formal point of view, yes, what PeterJ is saying is nonsense; it literally makes no sense. But we are human beings, not robots and from a purely intuitive point of view, which I believe is clearly implied in all of PeterJ's posts, I don't think he is very far off; it sounds very much like what is being said here, and while I have nothing to compare the information there with, I'd be very surprised to find out it was complete nonsense.

So, DrRocket, from a intuitive, no-PhD-in-math point of view, is it correct? I would like to know myself; so far, I have looked at the Riemann hypothesis in the manner described in the aforementioned article. I would very much like to be alerted to the fact that it's all rubbish.

 

Yep, it literally makes no sense. That is pretty much the definition of "nonsense".

 

You can interpret nonsense as you like, but I would never classify nonsense as being " not very far off". Nonsense, in my vocabulary, is, again by definition, always "very far off" indeed.

 

Mathematics is all about making sense. There is no place for nonsense in a discussion of mathematics.

 

There is NO "intuitive non-PhD" explanation of the Riemann Hypothesis or the Riemann zeta function. That is because we don't understand it well enough. Feynman was once asked for a freshman explanation of why Fermi-Dirac statistics apply to spin 1/2 particles. He failed to produce such an explanation because as we said "we really don't understand it." That is the case with the Riemann Hypothesis. If we understood it, it would be the Riemann Theorem. If analogies were adequate for a serious understanding of the subject then they would be used routinely in mathematics textbooks. They are not.

 

Mathematics popularizations and analogies tend to be poor. Mathematics is an inherently abstract subject, and the abstraction is an integral part of it. When physicists write an article for popular consumption, they usually leave out all of the mathematics. When mathematicians do that there is nothing left.

 

The article by du Sautoy cannot be classified as either correct or incorrect. It is an attempt to explain by analogy the concept of a complex-valued function of a complex variable and to extend that analogy to an explanation of the content of the Riemann Hypothesis. An analogy may be classified as "enlightening, neutral, or misleading" but not correct or incorrect. That classification is at best subjective and relative to the general understanding of the subject by the individual assigning the classification.

 

I do not find the analogy particularly enlightening. You might.

 

I can confidently state that you will find no such analogy presented in the usual textbooks on complex analysis, and that does say something about the approach used in the mathematical community for the teaching of complex variable theory to serious students of the subject. However, it is also true that in texts on complex analysis one rarely sees any significant discussion of the Riemann hypothesis or of the Riemann zeta function itself. That is left to more specialized monographs that are accessible only after one has mastered the theory of one complex variable.

 

The subject of du Sautoy's article is not so much the Riemann hypothesis itself as what is now called the Prime Number Theorem. The content of the prime number theorem is that the number of prime numbers less than a real number x tends asymptotically to x/ln(x) as x increases without bound. That is the subject of Riemann's paper "On the Number of Primes Less than a Given Magnitude", in which the Riemann hypothesis is included as a remark. Riemann neither originated the conjecture that became the Prime Number Theorem , nor produced a correct proof of that theorem. So, to the extent that du Sautoy implies that Riemann succeeded with his harmonics in proving that theorem, the article is "incorrect". There are several proofs of the prime number theorem that are now known and they are often presented in classes on functional analysis or the theory of one complex variable,using methods quite different from those in Riemann's paper.

 

The importance of his paper lies in the methods that he employed, in his study of the zeta function and in the remark that has become the most famous and likely most difficult problem in all of mathematics. I know of three books that present accurate discussions of the Riemann zeta function. They are Riemann's Zeta Function by Edwards, The Theory of the Riemann Zeta Function by Titchmarsh ( revised by Heath-Brown), and The Riemann Zeta-Function by Ivic. None are popularizations. The book by Edwards is the most accessible and contains a translation of Riemann's original paper as well as a historical discussion of it. I find that historical discussion quite a bit more useful than du Sautoy's article.

 

I don't find the du Sautoy article particularly useful or enlightening for those interested in understanding the zeta function and the Riemann Hypothesis, or the Prime Number Theorem. Riemann did approach the problem of the Prime Number Theorem using a method of approximation somewhat akin to the harmonics to which du Sautoy alludes, but that did not result in a convincing proof, or even a series that could be seen to converge. In that sense one might find the du Sautoy article misleading, but again, in this case much lies in the eye of the beholder.

 

So if you are looking for a recommendation for a relatively accessible and accurate discussion of the zeta function and the Riemann Hypothesis, my recommendation is to read serious accounts, the most accessible of which is the book by Edwards. But be aware that you are entering the territory of research mathematics, in which a great deal is unknown and in which sophisticated methods will be employed with the expectation that the reader has the necessary background to understand them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great. Now we're on the move. Thanks Shadow, and also DrR for a helpful post.

 

I think I agree with everything in that last post, DrR, except for your dismissal of my approach to the primes. Generally I find Du Sautoy unhelpful and after reading his book twice I knew nothing about the primes. Even in this article he talks about the primes being chaotic and mysterious, and I think this is very misleading. Derbyshire was no more help. But I have at least read them. Unfortunately there does not seem to be a book that discusses the mechanics of the primes, the reason why they occur where they do, rather than jumping straight to the mathematics of Euler etc. This is a mistake for anyone writing for laymen in my opinion. (Most books on music theory do the same, missing our the crucial stuff.)

 

It may be true that what I'm doing is not mathematics but I don't actually care. If it works then I don't see that it matters. Call it acoustics instead, or wave mechanics, since as a musician and studio engineeer this is how I think of it. What I am looking at is the behaviour of the products of the primes, since this is what determines the behaviour of the primes. To me it appears very misleading to speak of the 'music of the primes'. I'd prefer to say that the primes are the rests in the music of the products of the primes.

 

Please excuse my clumsy language.

 

Let's start with an empty number line and create the numbers by a dynamic process fo multiplication and division. The numbers 0 and 1 create nothing. When we add 2 we get the powers of 2, and when we add the 3 we get a combination wave of products that ensures that 4 out of six numbers cannot be prime.

 

So now we have a twin prime at every 6n number.

 

When we add 5 we produce a longer waveform f=30, such that two in every five of these twins can be crossed off. (The products of 5 that impact on the quantity of twins occur at 30n+/-5. Generally it's 6p+/-p).

 

Okay. This is not number theory as we know it. But immediately we see the reason why there can never be more than two consecutive twin primes except in the 30 numbers either side of zero. This is not an earth-shattering result but it is something. For the locations of twins (the 6n series) we know that the density of twins cannot be greater than 4 in 6. In principle this calc. can be made accurate for any amount of primes.

 

I won't bore you with more. The point is just that as we add each consecutive prime we can calculate its maximum impact on the density of twin primes further up the line. So for the products of 7 we know that the most they can reduce the as yet unsieved twins is 2 in 42, or 2 in 7 of the possible locations. Some of these will already be products of 5, but this doesn't matter. If we assume that 2/7 locations are crossed off then we have a worst case scenario.

 

Each prime make the scenario a little worse, reducing the quantity of possible remaining twins by 2/6p, or 2/p of the twin locations. This is not counting, just establishing limits.

 

It would not work to simply deduct 2/5 then 2/7 then 2/11 ... , but by selecting a range A to B we can do the calc. up to sqrt B and that'll work.

 

I found that for the range p squared to p1 squared then even for this worst case scenario on average the minimum quantity of twins in the range increases with p. This is the calc. that was okayed by the person I sent it to, albeit with a proviso.

 

This is jut the principles I'm playing with, not the whole story, but you'll get the idea. What I was trying to do, (I haven't thought about any of this for a few years), was find a proof for the twin primes as simple as is Euclid's for the primes.

 

The RH is a different matter. This is way over my head. Still, I'd like to understand the principles better, and I think I've almost got them. Just need a but more help. I thought for a moment there I had it after reading that Du Sautoy article, (which seems to me to deal with some ommissions in his book) but apparently not. Maybe DrR is right, and Du Sautoy is explaining things incorrectly in an effort to simplify them.

 

What I'm saying doesn't seem very controversial, just maybe a bit dumb from a mathematicians pov. It gets a little less dumb as it develops

 

As a long-serving entrepreneur I'm happy with spreadsheets, and found that I could set one up to use this 6p+/-p trick to sieve for primes, producing a prime checker that worked up to 10^11. For this reason I see no reason to dismiss my simple-minded approach other than that it is slow and clumsy. It's clock arithmetic underneath my muddled explanation.

 

DrR - Would you have time to go back to that sentence I wrote (the nonsense one) and tell me exactly at what point it goes wrong? I thought at least it started out okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the book recommendations; they're certain to be my first stop after I've mastered complex analyses. Speaking of which, is there any book you might recommend on that topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the book recommendations; they're certain to be my first stop after I've mastered complex analyses. Speaking of which, is there any book you might recommend on that topic?

 

There are lols of books on complex analysis.

 

At an introductory to intermediate level there is new one that is very good -- Complex Variables by Joseph L. Taylor. It is published by the American Mathematical Society and therefore is relatively inexpensive (in the expensive realm of math and science books). There is a discount for members.

 

At a somewhat higher level there is Real and Complex Analysis by Walter Rudin, which contains a lot more than just complex analysis.

 

Then there a number of older classic books which are still extremely good: Theory of Functions of a Complex Variable by Caratheodory; Analytic Function Theory by Einar Hille; Complex Analysis by Lars Ahlfors.

 

At the most elementary level there is also Complex Variables and Applications by Churchill et al.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great. Now we're on the move. ...It may be true that what I'm doing is not mathematics but I don't actually care. If it works then I don't see that it matters. ...

Let's start with an empty number line and create the numbers by a dynamic process fo multiplication and division. The numbers 0 and 1 create nothing. When we add 2 we get the powers of 2, and when we add the 3 we get a combination wave of products that ensures that 4 out of six numbers cannot be prime.

 

So now we have a twin prime at every 6n number.

 

...Okay. This is not number theory as we know it.... ...

 

I won't bore you with more. The point is just that as we add each consecutive prime we can calculate its maximum impact on the density of twin primes further up the line. So for the products of 7 we know that the most they can reduce the as yet unsieved twins is 2 in 42, or 2 in 7 of the possible locations. Some of these will already be products of 5, but this doesn't matter. If we assume that 2/7 locations are crossed off then we have a worst case scenario.

 

...

DrR - Would you have time to go back to that sentence I wrote (the nonsense one) and tell me exactly at what point it goes wrong? I thought at least it started out okay.

 

This is complete nonsense. It has NOTHING to do with the twin prime conjecture and in fact it has NOTHING to do with much of anything.

 

We already know the asymptotic distribution of the primes. That is the content of the Prime Number Theorem discussed earlier. So we know that the primes are distributed rather sparsely (asymptotically the number of primes less than x behaves like x/ln(x) ). We have no idea how many of those infinitely many prime numbers are twins.

 

The twin prime conjecture is that there are infinitely many twin primes. We already know that they are sparsely distributed, obviously at least as sparsely distributed as the set of all primes. We don't know how sparse. We don't know how sparse to the extent that we don't know if there are only a finite number of them. Your reasoning has NOTHING to do with settling that issue.

 

Your fundamental problem is that you don't understand that you don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying doesn't seem very controversial, just maybe a bit dumb from a mathematicians pov. It gets a little less dumb as it develops

 

It isn't really dumb or controversial it just kind of wonders here there and no where in particular which makes it hard to follow from a readers 'POV'. Maybe you could sum up in a singular definitive statement what you are trying to go on about? You started with Riemann Z and now you are acknowledging the existence of twin primes to what extent?

 

I had liked the title of the thread but I hadn't entered it because it seemed rather devoid of substance. But like Shadow I like to understand what individuals are trying to say and I try to have patience. What are the definitive statements that you are trying to make? And could you please relate it back to the original question because I can't find the bridge between then and now???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't really dumb or controversial it just kind of wonders here there and no where in particular which makes it hard to follow from a readers 'POV'. Maybe you could sum up in a singular definitive statement what you are trying to go on about? You started with Riemann Z and now you are acknowledging the existence of twin primes to what extent?

 

I had liked the title of the thread but I hadn't entered it because it seemed rather devoid of substance. But like Shadow I like to understand what individuals are trying to say and I try to have patience. What are the definitive statements that you are trying to make? And could you please relate it back to the original question because I can't find the bridge between then and now???

I'm not trying to go on about anything or make any defintive statements. I'm trying to ask a few questions, that's all. But I got caught up in this stuff about the twin primes by accident. I'd rather drop it. I coudn't care less about the twin primes. It was a hobby of mine a few years ago.

 

DrR - We already know the asymptotic distribution of the primes. That is the content of the Prime Number Theorem discussed earlier. So we know that the primes are distributed rather sparsely (asymptotically the number of primes less than x behaves like x/ln(x) ). We have no idea how many of those infinitely many prime numbers are twins.

 

The twin prime conjecture is that there are infinitely many twin primes. We already know that they are sparsely distributed, obviously at least as sparsely distributed as the set of all primes. We don't know how sparse. We don't know how sparse to the extent that we don't know if there are only a finite number of them. Your reasoning has NOTHING to do with settling that issue.

Do you think I don't know this? Really? Why? How couild someone study the twin primes for more than an hour and not know this?

 

Of course my reasoning has something to do with the issue. That much at least is perfectly obvious.

 

But let's leave it. It's not what I wanted to talk about, and not the manner in which I want to ever talk about anything with anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to go on about anything or make any defintive statements. I'm trying to ask a few questions, that's all. But I got caught up in this stuff about the twin primes by accident. I'd rather drop it. I coudn't care less about the twin primes. It was a hobby of mine a few years ago.

 

 

Do you think I don't know this? Really? Why? How couild someone study the twin primes for more than an hour and not know this?

 

Of course my reasoning has something to do with the issue. That much at least is perfectly obvious.

 

But let's leave it. It's not what I wanted to talk about, and not the manner in which I want to ever talk about anything with anyone.

 

 

So what is the thread about now or have all your questions been postponed indefinitely? Is Riemann Z still a topic? Honestly if the discussion of twin primes makes the conversation uneasy for you, I don't see how a discussion on Riemann Z is going to be any easier or more productive. Just curious it's your OP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to discuss the twin primes but RH is supposed to be the topic. However, I'm exhausted with all this nonsense and can't see much point in continuing. DrR has decided to make the disxussion I wanted to have impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to discuss the twin primes but RH is supposed to be the topic. However, I'm exhausted with all this nonsense and can't see much point in continuing. DrR has decided to make the disxussion I wanted to have impossible.

 

DrRocket can be ignored, generally speaking I don't ignore DrRocket because what he says makes sense and comes from his experience which is obvious in his posts. As I said I'm patient, but far less experienced. If there is something you want to go over together I would be glad to join the conversation but you are going to have to be clear on what it is you hope to achieve. Otherwise I wish you the best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello

i got full analytic proof of Riemann hypothesis,i would like to write it in mathematical language ,i am not a specialist in mathematics ,i am doctor in electrical engineering,i need a help to finilize my proof.

advice ...what to do??

regards

 

my email

removed by mod

 

The Riemann zeta function is a function of a complex variable that starts with

 

[math] \zeta (s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac {1}{n^s}[/math]

 

It is easy to see that this converges for [math] re(s)>1[/math]

 

From that point you need to understand more of complex analysis and the notion of analytic continuation. It is the analytic continuation of the zeta function that is needed for the Riemann hypothesis.

 

But to your basic question the input to this function is a complex number [math]s[/math] and the output is the complex number that is the value of the zeta function at that point. It is not something defined by any closed-form expression and that is one reason that the Riemann hypothesis is such a difficult problem (it is NOT the primary reason why it is difficult since mathematicians works with other functions lacking a closed form expression all the time).

 

To really get into the problem you would need to read something like Titschmarsh's book The Theory of the Riemann Zeta-Function.

 

The Riemann zeta function is a function of a complex variable that starts with

 

[math] \zeta (s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac {1}{n^s}[/math]

 

It is easy to see that this converges for [math] re(s)>1[/math]

 

From that point you need to understand more of complex analysis and the notion of analytic continuation. It is the analytic continuation of the zeta function that is needed for the Riemann hypothesis.

 

But to your basic question the input to this function is a complex number [math]s[/math] and the output is the complex number that is the value of the zeta function at that point. It is not something defined by any closed-form expression and that is one reason that the Riemann hypothesis is such a difficult problem (it is NOT the primary reason why it is difficult since mathematicians works with other functions lacking a closed form expression all the time).

 

To really get into the problem you would need to read something like Titschmarsh's book The Theory of the Riemann Zeta-Function.

 

HELLO DR

 

HELLO DR

Edited by imatfaal
removal of email address

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello

i got full analytic proof of Riemann hypothesis,i would like to write it in mathematical language ,i am not a specialist in mathematics ,i am doctor in electrical engineering,i need a help to finilize my proof.

advice ...what to do??

regards

 

my email

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not sure that I can understand how you can have an analytical proof (of anything) which isn't already in mathematical language. I cannot envisage even the possibility of a proof of Riemann Hypothesis which is not deeply mathematical in its nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for your reply

it is in mathematical formulas and analysis

but the problem is that i didnt write any scientific paper in mathematics before

i used un ordinary technique to proof it

i am sure in my proof,because i got the results directly from certain formulas

now my problem how to write this proof

i wrote many papers in electrical science before

but in maths i afraid,

i need help fro mathematicans

be sure please in my words

I am not sure that I can understand how you can have an analytical proof (of anything) which isn't already in mathematical language. I cannot envisage even the possibility of a proof of Riemann Hypothesis which is not deeply mathematical in its nature

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the maths is sound, flows logically, and is well presented I don't think the text will matter - and if the maths is the least bit dodgy then no amount of fine words will save it. Take some time to read a few mathematics papers - perhaps in Russian first and English later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems quite plausible to me that a proof could come from electrical engineering, since to me it seems to be a wave-mechanical problem.

 

But I cannot for the life of me believe that anyone intelligent enough to have found a proof of any kind, or even to understand the problem in the first place, would post a request like this all in lower-case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for your reply

it is in mathematical formulas and analysis

but the problem is that i didnt write any scientific paper in mathematics before

i used un ordinary technique to proof it

i am sure in my proof,because i got the results directly from certain formulas

now my problem how to write this proof

i wrote many papers in electrical science before

but in maths i afraid,

i need help fro mathematicans

be sure please in my words

 

Really, you should find a nearby university with a respectable mathematics department and have one of their professors turn it into 'proper' math and then publish the paper co-authored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes you are right

three months ago ,i found one american university in DUBAI , i am still waiting for the process , it takes very long time

 

thank you

 

It seems quite plausible to me that a proof could come from electrical engineering, since to me it seems to be a wave-mechanical problem.

 

But I cannot for the life of me believe that anyone intelligent enough to have found a proof of any kind, or even to understand the problem in the first place, would post a request like this all in lower-case.

 

The Riemann hypothesis contain a great physical and philosophical concepts, and I guess it can not be proven without a deep understanding of the physical nature of the equation

 

 

I've tested the physical concept and geometrical meaning of Riemann equation. Then writing it in the form of mathematical equations, and after doing logical and sequential analysis i got desired result ,that the real part of all nontrivial zeroes equal half. But the problem is that the environment in which I work is not research ... I wrote to some universities in Europe, but I did not get an answer.

really now I will try to publish what i have done.

 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes you are right

three months ago ,i found one american university in DUBAI , i am still waiting for the process , it takes very long time

 

thank you

 

From my talks with various math professors it seems that many of them -- if not most of them -- ignore most work sent to them on major open problems unless it is immediately clear that the author is aware of current work on this problem, and the work being presented clear states its methodology. So with that I would not expect to hear back from a professor soon, however, to improve your chances of a researcher actually taking the time to read your paper make sure you have a strong title, abstract, and introduction.

 

 

The Riemann hypothesis contain a great physical and philosophical concepts, and I guess it can not be proven without a deep understanding of the physical nature of the equation

 

What are you suggesting is the physical nature of the Riemann zeta function?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sami - are you concentrating on English language publication? The only one of the Cray Millennium problems that have been solved is the Poincare Conjecture and that was a Russian Dr Gregory Perelman.

 

Last time I needed academic help that I really did not deserve and was outside my field I approached a lecturer at the same University as I was working at and offered him a coffee and a muffin if he spent 5 mins answering my question (he was a genetics lecturer I was a law researcher) - in the end we talked for about an hour. So I would use any academic contacts I have (no matter which department) to get my foot in a door at a decent University and then "buttonhole" a maths academic and bribe him or her into giving you a few moments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact I love mathematics and physics,I studied in Russia Electrical Engineering, and know Russian language fluently, I want to be clear with you

, the problem what I have, is not how to write a scientific paper in English, I wrote a series of scientific articles successfully and participated in some global conferences.

 

I can summarize the problem as follows:

Riemann hypothesis not difficult for me, never, we can not prove Riemann hypothesis using the principles and laws of mathematics by using methods known Aboisth direct application the laws of mathematics

So I used the unusual way to prove the hypothesis, I mean by the (word unusual): that I did not see anything similar in any article or book of mathematics before, and used physics concepts, and want to assure you the Riemann Theorem express deep and wonderful phisiand wonderful physical meaning.

In fact I think I got a new and innovative way that I think it's useful to explain some of the physical phenomena which could lead to the solution of some matters and outstanding issuesrolleyes.gif

Now I'm trying to correspond with universities here or in Europe, on all cases, I realized that I am not a specialist in mathematics or physics, so in order to be confident that the found results are true I want to work through research group or discuss the results with one of the big specialists.

Unfortunatelyangry.gif here I couldn't find what I'm looking for so i come to this forum for advice.

rolleyes.gif

 

yes you are right

but we will try to do the best

by physical nature i mean that the Riemann hypothesis describes natural physical process , if we could analyze and express it in mathematical formulas then the proof becomes very easy to dorolleyes.gif

 

From my talks with various math professors it seems that many of them -- if not most of them -- ignore most work sent to them on major open problems unless it is immediately clear that the author is aware of current work on this problem, and the work being presented clear states its methodology. So with that I would not expect to hear back from a professor soon, however, to improve your chances of a researcher actually taking the time to read your paper make sure you have a strong title, abstract, and introduction.

 

 

 

 

What are you suggesting is the physical nature of the Riemann zeta function?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll almost certainly not be able to understand your work, but I'm extremely intrigued. I hope you'll be able to summarise it here sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain solutions to the zeta function are used in physical modelling - I seem to remember one real value is connected to a property of Bose Einstein Condensates under specific experimental conditions. But as for a physical analogue or relevance to the sum of an infinite series over half the complex plane - nope I am baffled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear PETER

 

 

are you mathematician?

 

I'll almost certainly not be able to understand your work, but I'm extremely intrigued. I hope you'll be able to summarise it here sometime.

 

 

 

 

Dear PETER

 

 

are you mathematician?

 

Riemann hypothesis proof is not difficult at all, i am sure that ,the average intelligence school student can prove this hypothesis, the difficulty is in the idea and concept only, How to understand that what is the real meaning of these numbers sequential, what is the meaning under the real part of the nontrivial is equal to the 1/2, there is a divine meaning to these figures and this equation, Riemann series is the he first class equation of Divine,which gives an explanation for the first moments of the origins of the universe after the Big Bang>

it can explain the universe evaluation i guess not only prime numbers distribution.

 

 

I'll almost certainly not be able to understand your work, but I'm extremely intrigued. I hope you'll be able to summarise it here sometime.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.