mersenneforum.org Riemann Hypothesis according to Bearnol
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2006-07-29, 10:50 #1 bearnol     Sep 2005 12710 Posts Proved several years ago!
 2006-07-29, 12:54 #2 Fusion_power     Aug 2003 Snicker, AL 95910 Posts Methinks bearnol's "solution" suffers from chicken or egg syndrome. The last serious attempt at a Reimann proof was from de Branges about a year ago. There are several attempts recently published but most are deficient in one or another aspect. A google search for "Riemann Branges" will bring up some interesting reading. Fusion
 2006-07-29, 14:01 #3 bearnol     Sep 2005 127 Posts My solution is correct and complete - think about it for more than 2 seconds and you'll see. There is some surprisingly clever logic hidden in those few lines :) btw, it _also_ demonstrates pretty clearly - in rebuff to your assertion of chicken and egg - why the zeros of zeta occur in symmetric pairs about the real axis, a fact I was not even aware of until after I came up with the proof, but which I later (also) read to be true... J
 2006-07-29, 18:17 #4 jinydu     Dec 2003 Hopefully Near M48 33368 Posts Also, bearnol's "solution" contains lots of indecipherable notation...
 2006-07-29, 19:43 #5 bearnol     Sep 2005 127 Posts It uses, I believe, one of a number of fairly standard ways of expressing some mathematical notation (eg superscripts) in plain ASCII. I deliberately chose this format (ie plain text) (a number of years ago) to try and make the proof as accessible as possible to as wide a range of browsers as possible. Since the proof's exposition (if not inspiration) is so simple, anyone knowing the form of the zeta function should be able to follow it very easily, regardless of exact coding anyway. J
 2006-07-29, 21:21 #6 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 2,467 Posts Is that supposed to be $\left( \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^{-s} \right) \cdot n^{2s-1}$ or $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left( n^{-s} \cdot n^{2s-1} \right)$ Looks like you're multiplying the expression by n^{2s-1}, even though n is the variable of summation. Then you pull that multipler into the sum even though it's not constant. Is that what you were trying to do? Alex
2006-07-29, 22:11   #7
jinydu

Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48

2×3×293 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jinydu Also, bearnol's "solution" contains lots of indecipherable notation...
For example, "n**-s"

Besides, $\zeta(s)\neq\zeta(1-s)$ in general. For example, $\zeta(1)\neq\zeta(0)$.

Last fiddled with by jinydu on 2006-07-29 at 22:12

2006-07-30, 07:43   #8
bearnol

Sep 2005

127 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by akruppa Is that supposed to be $\left( \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^{-s} \right) \cdot n^{2s-1}$ or $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left( n^{-s} \cdot n^{2s-1} \right)$ Alex
The latter

2006-07-30, 07:48   #9
bearnol

Sep 2005

127 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jinydu Besides, $\zeta(s)\neq\zeta(1-s)$ in general. For example, $\zeta(1)\neq\zeta(0)$.
True, zeta(s) <> zeta(1-s) in general. My proof only applies when zeta(s) = 0. Then zeta(s) DOES = zeta(1-s)

 2006-07-30, 09:22 #10 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 2,467 Posts > The latter Where does the n^(2s-1) term come from? > My proof only applies when zeta(s) = 0. Then zeta(s) DOES = zeta(1-s) The trivial zeros are not symmetric around s=1/2. Alex EDIT2: All posts but first moved to separate thread. Last fiddled with by akruppa on 2006-07-30 at 10:09 Reason: 1/2, not 1
2006-07-30, 10:29   #11
bearnol

Sep 2005

12710 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by akruppa > The latter Where does the n^(2s-1) term come from?
I _choose_ the 2s-1 term. It is chosen for two reasons:
1) It 'converts' the s term into 1-s
2) because the real part of s is less than 1, the real part of 2s-1 is also less than 1. Hence the summation must still sum to zero

Quote:
 Originally Posted by akruppa EDIT2: All posts but first moved to separate thread.
Thanks

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post magox Math 12 2016-07-07 03:01 kurtulmehtap Math 17 2009-10-17 15:40 ewmayer Math 0 2009-10-09 16:50 Carl Fischbach Miscellaneous Math 62 2008-11-11 14:00 georgekh Miscellaneous Math 3 2004-12-02 18:45

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:17.

Thu Oct 28 21:17:54 UTC 2021 up 97 days, 15:46, 0 users, load averages: 1.39, 1.29, 1.33