My Math Forum Help Me Understand Riemann's 1859 Paper

 Calculus Calculus Math Forum

 July 3rd, 2015, 12:01 AM #1 Newbie   Joined: Apr 2015 From: Michigan Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Help Me Understand Riemann's 1859 Paper http://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/ezeta.pdf There are quite a few things that are left unstated. Notably on page 2 (labeled page 1 in the bottom but it is page 2 in the PDF) for his first equation he does not bother putting "infinity" over his Sigma or an "n=1" below it and doesn't do so for the Product Series either. That one is not a problem since I understand what that means from being familiar with studying the proof of this relationship before. However, the second equation (same page) is confusing. I am familiar with improper integrals. However, "n" was just used in a context where it means a value that starts at 1 and goes up by 1 again and again to infinity, and now it's in an integral. The integral does not have a "Sigma" inside of it. Is this just an unstated thing? Also, the Product Series sign on the right side of the equation still does not have any indices to indicate the initial or final values. If it is still p=1 at the bottom then that would mean since it is BigPi(s-1) that it would be (s-1)^infinity. Is that what he means here? Or is the lower index supposed to be s=1 now? Also is the n^s at the bottom supposed to include an unstated Sigma before it? Maybe once I know the semantics of the 2nd equation the relationship will be obvious to me, but I'm not sure. I would like to know where Riemann got it from. Since he prefaces the 2nd equation with "On making use of the equation", I can only surmise that this is an equation proven in a previous paper either by Riemann or by another mathematician. Last edited by skipjack; July 3rd, 2015 at 09:52 AM.
 July 3rd, 2015, 06:17 AM #2 Math Team   Joined: Jan 2015 From: Alabama Posts: 3,264 Thanks: 902 I think it is clear from the fact that this is "as one substitutes for p all prime numbers" that the product on the left is over all prime numbers, p, while the sum is for n going from 1 to infinity.
July 3rd, 2015, 11:09 AM   #3
Newbie

Joined: Apr 2015
From: Michigan

Posts: 4
Thanks: 0

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Country Boy I think it is clear from the fact that this is "as one substitutes for p all prime numbers" that the product on the left is over all prime numbers, p, while the sum is for n going from 1 to infinity.
Thank you, but I already understand the first equation. What confuses me is the second equation, the one with the integral on the left and a Product series in the numerator on the right side over an "n^s" in the denominator.

The integral uses "n" in its integrand but the integral does not contain a "Sigma" in it in spite of the most previous use of "n" being in an equation where "n" represents the variable which the index is substituted for in the infinite series. That makes me wonder if the "n" here has a different meaning than the "n" in the first equation or if the Sigma is left unstated under the integral in the second equation.

Another confusing part is whether BigPi(s-1) on the right side of the second equation is uses "p" as the variable for the index [in which case the absence of p would make BigPi(s-1) equal to (s-1)^(infinity)].

And finally does the "n^s" in the denominator on the right side mean Riemann means "Sigma (1/n^s)" multiplied by "BigPi(s-1)"?

Is this a common practice in mathematics (or was at the time?) to omit "Sigma" in cases like this?

Also based on Riemann's language I suspect the second equation was derived from a previous paper, though Riemann leaves that unstated. If anyone knows where I can find the second equation in its original paper please let me know.

 June 6th, 2019, 09:08 AM #4 Newbie   Joined: Jun 2019 From: South Africa Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Since you asked this nearly four years ago you've almost certainly figured it out by now, but in case not (and for others like me who stumble across this post): In that second equation you're referencing, Riemann uses capital Pi to denote the Gamma function, not "Product". He almost certainly got this equation from Gauss (who introduced this notation) or perhaps Euler, who was the main inspiration for the work of both mathematicians.

 Tags 1859, paper, riemann, understand

### understand riemann math

Click on a term to search for related topics.
 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post rhythmiccycle Complex Analysis 1 August 13th, 2011 03:12 PM SH-Rock Calculus 0 October 11th, 2010 09:23 AM plsm Applied Math 0 June 10th, 2009 06:02 PM cheloniophile Real Analysis 1 November 23rd, 2008 05:30 PM bigli Real Analysis 3 May 22nd, 2007 10:00 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top