My Math Forum Riemann Hypothesis does not exist, himself has proved it

 Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum

 February 9th, 2017, 08:31 PM #1 Newbie   Joined: Aug 2015 From: china Posts: 6 Thanks: 4 Riemann Hypothesis does not exist, himself has proved it In fact, Riemann himself has proved the problem. Please look at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02932v5.pdf
 February 11th, 2017, 09:41 PM #2 Banned Camp   Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24 Interesting, expecially knowing how much he dug deep in complex analysis.
February 12th, 2017, 04:11 PM   #3
Newbie

Joined: Aug 2015
From: china

Posts: 6
Thanks: 4

Quote:
 Originally Posted by complicatemodulus Interesting, expecially knowing how much he dug deep in complex analysis.
Although there is a great deal of research on Riemann's two papers, there are yet some content and formulas not being studied thoroughly. The most typical example is the following formula

$\displaystyle \pi^{-s/2}\Gamma(s/2)\zeta(s)=2\Re[\pi^{-s/2}\Gamma(s/2)f(s)],\Re(s)=1/2$

nobody has pointed out why Riemann gave it since 1932. This is Riemann's conclusion in his nachlass. Namely $\displaystyle N(T)=N_0(T)$

February 12th, 2017, 09:37 PM   #4
Banned Camp

Joined: Dec 2012

Posts: 1,028
Thanks: 24

I'm quite sure he build all his work one this simple formula for primes:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by complicatemodulus To be clear my proof for Riemann Hypo follow as: Since Naturals are well ordered, Since Powers of Numbers (Integer, Rational or Complex under the conditions are made just of Integers or Rationals parts) are well ordered too, Primes are well ordered too since: $z= n!/n^2$ can be taken as ordinal who stick $n$ whos: $z\in\mathbb{N}$ in the Non Prime Set and $z\in\mathbb{Q-N}$ in the Prime Set Since we know how to build Rh function and who is the first zero for the first prime and who is the first zero for the first non prime, the same for the 2th and the 3th and the n-th, and the one of the n-th+1 for both... Riemann's 1/2 integer part of S power, follows by the transfinite law of induction

February 13th, 2017, 05:40 PM   #5
Newbie

Joined: Aug 2015
From: china

Posts: 6
Thanks: 4

To understand Riemann's proof, we must read Riemann's manuscript.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by fengnr In fact, Riemann himself has proved the problem. Please look at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02932v5.pdf
To understand Riemann's proof, we have to read the article that C.L.Siegel compiled according to Riemann's manuscript.

 February 14th, 2017, 12:50 AM #6 Banned Camp   Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24 An evident trace can be found also reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_...ling_functions It also helps in correctly rewriting Fermat the Last...
 March 10th, 2017, 05:38 AM #7 Banned Camp   Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24 Here another paper on RH: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ann_Hypothesis

 Tags exist, hypothesis, proved, riemann

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post robinlrandall New Users 2 August 23rd, 2014 03:10 PM mathbalarka Number Theory 0 October 31st, 2013 12:54 AM Eureka Number Theory 1 September 12th, 2011 01:07 PM MyNameIsVu Complex Analysis 2 April 16th, 2009 07:51 AM Whoever Number Theory 72 February 11th, 2009 06:03 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top