My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
September 23rd, 2012, 08:17 AM   #1
Newbie
 
Joined: Sep 2012

Posts: 12
Thanks: 0

Is Riemanns hypothesis proven wrong?

This proof proves Riemann's hypothesis wrong, I've posted it elsewhere but I never got an answer whats wrong with this proof.
Maybe someone could shed some light on this for the benefit of my friend Semjase.

From Euler's equation e^(i*pi) = -1

Let 0 + 0i = 1/1^s + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s . . .

Moving 1/2^s to the left side of the equation you get

-1/2^s = 1/1^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s . . .

substituting -1 = e^i*pi

e^(i*pi)/2^s = 1/1^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s . . .

add 1/2^s to both sides of the equation

1/2^s + e^(i*pi)/2^s = 1/1^s + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s . . .

which gives

0 + 0i = 1/2^s + e^(i*pi)/2^s

multiply both sides 2^(2*s)

0 + 0i = 2^s + (2^s)*e^(pi*i)

next

0 + 0i = (2^a)*2^(q*i) + (2^a)*2^(q*i)*e^(pi*i)

let 2^q = e^pi

0 + 0i = (2^a)*e^(pi*i) + (2^a)*e^(pi*i)*e^(pi*i)

let e^(pi*i) =-1

0 + 0i = (2^a)*-1 + (2^a)*-1*-1

0 + 0i = - 2^a + 2^a

Now (a) can be any real number therefore Riemann's hypothesis is incorrect
Semjase is offline  
 
September 23rd, 2012, 10:34 AM   #2
Math Team
 
Joined: Sep 2007

Posts: 2,409
Thanks: 6

Re: Is Riemanns hypothesis proven wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Semjase
This proof proves Riemann's hypothesis wrong, I've posted it elsewhere but I never got an answer whats wrong with this proof.
Maybe someone could shed some light on this for the benefit of my friend Semjase.

From Euler's equation e^(i*pi) = -1

Let 0 + 0i = 1/1^s + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s . . .
This makes no sense at all. Do you mean "if" that

Moving 1/2^s to the left side of the equation you get

-1/2^s = 1/1^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s . . .

substituting -1 = e^i*pi

e^(i*pi)/2^s = 1/1^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s . . .

add 1/2^s to both sides of the equation

1/2^s + e^(i*pi)/2^s = 1/1^s + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s . . .

which gives

0 + 0i = 1/2^s + e^(i*pi)/2^s

multiply both sides 2^(2*s)

0 + 0i = 2^s + (2^s)*e^(pi*i)

next

0 + 0i = (2^a)*2^(q*i) + (2^a)*2^(q*i)*e^(pi*i)

let 2^q = e^pi

0 + 0i = (2^a)*e^(pi*i) + (2^a)*e^(pi*i)*e^(pi*i)

let e^(pi*i) =-1

0 + 0i = (2^a)*-1 + (2^a)*-1*-1

0 + 0i = - 2^a + 2^a

Now (a) can be any real number therefore Riemann's hypothesis is incorrect[/quote]
That's non-sense. What you have proved is that "0= 0". Do you not understand that if you manipulate an equation, multiplying both sides of an equation by something involving the variable "x", you can introduce "new" solutions, getting an equation that has solutions the original equation didn't? For example to "disprove" the statement "The only solution to x- 1= 0 is 1" do the following: mutiply both sides of the equation by x to get . That factors as showing that both 1 and 0 satisfy the equation. You have simply manipulated the original equation to get a new equation that has all real numbers as solution. That says nothing about what numbers satisfy the original equation.
HallsofIvy is offline  
September 23rd, 2012, 03:49 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 595
Thanks: 16

Re: Is Riemanns hypothesis proven wrong?

Yes and in any case your original equation is not even the expression of Zeta in the strip ]0,1[, it is only valid for Re(s)>1 and it is known that Zeta does not have zero in that region...
Dougy is offline  
September 24th, 2012, 03:11 AM   #4
Math Team
 
mathbalarka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: India, West Bengal

Posts: 3,871
Thanks: 86

Math Focus: Number Theory
Re: Is Riemanns hypothesis proven wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Semjase
Let 0 + 0i = 1/1^s + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s . . .
This is not the riemann zeta. The formal definition of riemann zeta is the functional equation :

.

The definition you wrote,

is only valid for .

But riemann conjectured that all the zeros of zeta lies in the region . And so, your proof isn't valid for this case since 1/2<1
mathbalarka is offline  
October 2nd, 2012, 03:16 AM   #5
Global Moderator
 
greg1313's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
From: London, Ontario, Canada - The Forest City

Posts: 7,851
Thanks: 1075

Math Focus: Elementary mathematics and beyond
Re: Is Riemanns hypothesis proven wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathbalarka
The formal definition of riemann zeta is the functional equation :

.
This appears to define the zeta in terms of itself.
greg1313 is online now  
October 2nd, 2012, 09:00 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 595
Thanks: 16

Re: Is Riemanns hypothesis proven wrong?

This is the functional equation of Zeta, showing a symmetry of the function with respect to the critical line Re(s)=1/2. I don't know if it is the formal definition, but it I think it defines Zeta uniquely.
Dougy is offline  
October 2nd, 2012, 09:54 AM   #7
Math Team
 
mathbalarka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: India, West Bengal

Posts: 3,871
Thanks: 86

Math Focus: Number Theory
Re: Is Riemanns hypothesis proven wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg1313
This appears to define the zeta in terms of itself.
Yes. Every functional equation defines the function used in the equation uniquely (maybe) in terms of that function.

This is very important in calculating the values of for Re[s] < 1.

Let us calculate using this. We will get :



we know that ;





See, how useful it is?

.
mathbalarka is offline  
October 2nd, 2012, 10:10 AM   #8
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Re: Is Riemanns hypothesis proven wrong?

Of course the functional equation only tells you how to find one side when you already know how to find the other. The usual way, I think, is to define it for Re(s) > 1 and then use the analytic continuation to define it for the rest of
CRGreathouse is offline  
October 2nd, 2012, 11:12 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 595
Thanks: 16

Re: Is Riemanns hypothesis proven wrong?

Yes Mathbalarka, that is what Ramanujan wrote in his letter to Hardy, namely . They thought this guy was crazy, but actually he knew this property of Zeta but did not know the right notation. I am not sure if he knew the Riemann paper or if he comes to it by himself..knowing how great of a mathematician he was, that would not surprised me!
Dougy is offline  
October 2nd, 2012, 01:26 PM   #10
Math Team
 
agentredlum's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: North America, 42nd parallel

Posts: 3,372
Thanks: 233

Re: Is Riemanns hypothesis proven wrong?

If Dougy is right, that

why do we accept this result? To me it doesn't make sense, the sum on the left is not even close to the value on the right.

Can somebody explain the underlying philosophy that would force us to conclude such an 'absurdity', IMHO

agentredlum is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
hypothesis, proven, riemanns, wrong



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Using Cauchy-Riemanns equations Maximo Complex Analysis 1 February 7th, 2014 08:33 AM
What am I doing wrong in this basic equation? Or am I wrong? Regnes Algebra 2 January 19th, 2012 09:58 PM
Question about using previously proven theorems in logic pilfer00 Applied Math 2 July 26th, 2009 05:14 AM
Impossibility of odd perfect numbers - proven? zolden Number Theory 3 January 27th, 2009 04:59 PM
f linear but not differentiable ... Proven .... Noelopan Calculus 0 November 15th, 2008 03:12 AM





Copyright © 2018 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.