My Math Forum  

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

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Thanks Tree16Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
July 16th, 2013, 12:19 PM   #1
Math Team
 
Joined: Apr 2010

Posts: 2,780
Thanks: 361

Understanding the Riemann hypothesis

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
If I become a crank, I hope I can count on you to set me straight?
I hope I'll be able to but don't go nuts on the Riemann Hypothesis because I don't even get what they are asking!
Hoempa is offline  
 
July 16th, 2013, 12:45 PM   #2
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: Math Q&A Part 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoempa
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
If I become a crank, I hope I can count on you to set me straight?
I hope I'll be able to but don't go nuts on the Riemann Hypothesis because I don't even get what they are asking!
Do you understand the prime-counting function and the logarithmic integral ? The Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to

for all x >= 2657.

Or to make it even easier, see
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0008177

You don't have to understand the zeta function at all to understand RH. (Smart money says you'll have to understand it to follow the proof of RH... but we don't have one of those yet.)
CRGreathouse is offline  
July 16th, 2013, 02:01 PM   #3
Math Team
 
Joined: Apr 2010

Posts: 2,780
Thanks: 361

Re: Math Q&A Part 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Do you understand the prime-counting function and the logarithmic integral ? The Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to

for all x >= 2657.

Or to make it even easier, see
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0008177

You don't have to understand the zeta function at all to understand RH. (Smart money says you'll have to understand it to follow the proof of RH... but we don't have one of those yet.)
Ah that makes more sense, but the article convinces me not to be a crank on a proof How would one find the results proposed? Inspection and than a proof?
Hoempa is offline  
July 17th, 2013, 03:53 AM   #4
Math Team
 
mathbalarka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: India, West Bengal

Posts: 3,871
Thanks: 86

Math Focus: Number Theory
Re: Understanding the Riemann hypothesis

I'd rather like to help one understand the Riemann Hypothesis than a consequence of it. It takes a lot to prove that the bound on Pi(x) - Li(x) is equivalent to Riemann Hypothesis.

We have a function which is convergent only for Re(z) > 1. There are certain analytical methods which gives you some other function that agrees with the former one on Re(z) > 1 and also have it's own convergent values on some other domain. We can analytically continue zeta this way through the complex plane.

RH says that all the zeros of zeta, except some which lies on the negative even numbers, are situated on Im(z) = 1/2.

Balarka
.
mathbalarka is offline  
July 17th, 2013, 04:25 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 595
Thanks: 16

Re: Understanding the Riemann hypothesis

mathbalarka meant Re(z)=1/2
Dougy is offline  
July 17th, 2013, 05:23 AM   #6
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: Understanding the Riemann hypothesis

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathbalarka
I'd rather like to help one understand the Riemann Hypothesis than a consequence of it.
Ah, but that's merely a matter of perspective. From where I stand the RH *is* the result I gave above and the statement about the nontrivial zeros of the zeta function is merely a consequence.

'Of course' the two are logically equivalent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathbalarka
We have a function which is convergent only for Re(z) > 1. There are certain analytical methods which gives you some other function that agrees with the former one on Re(z) > 1 and also have it's own convergent values on some other domain. We can analytically continue zeta this way through the complex plane.
I don't think this is a useful explanation for Hoempa. If he doesn't understand analytic continuation, how is he going to understand that there are zeros on Re(x) = 1/2 at all, let alone have intuition about whether all would fall there or on Im(z) = 0?
CRGreathouse is offline  
July 17th, 2013, 06:18 AM   #7
Math Team
 
mathbalarka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: India, West Bengal

Posts: 3,871
Thanks: 86

Math Focus: Number Theory
Re: Understanding the Riemann hypothesis

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
Ah, but that's merely a matter of perspective.
True. I'd like to work with the original RH rather than the PNT-form RH, anyways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
Of course' the two are logically equivalent.
Perhaps I don't see, but is it obvious?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
If he doesn't understand analytic continuation, how is he going to understand that there are zeros on Re(x) = 1/2 at all, let alone have intuition about whether all would fall there or on Im(z) = 0?
Analytic continuation is a very easy concept, I don't think one should have problem understanding it. If F(x) has a complex domain D and G(x) has D', and F(x) = G(x) in D ? D', then F(x) is an extension to G(x) in D\{D'} and G(x) is an extension to F(x) in D'\{D}.
mathbalarka is offline  
July 17th, 2013, 06:32 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: Understanding the Riemann hypothesis

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathbalarka
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
Of course' the two are logically equivalent.
Perhaps I don't see, but is it obvious?
Not at all obvious, but true. See Schoenfeld 1976.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathbalarka
Analytic continuation is a very easy concept, I don't think one should have problem understanding it. If F(x) has a complex domain D and G(x) has D', and F(x) = G(x) in D ? D', then F(x) is an extension to G(x) in D\{D'} and G(x) is an extension to F(x) in D'\{D}.
We've both taken complex analysis, but I don't think Hoempa has. So I wouldn't assume that anything there is obvious.

For example, in the generality you present it, there's nothing special about a continuation -- there are beth_2 extensions of zeta to the values with Re(z) <= 1. It does make sense to talk about "the" analytic continuation of zeta, but only because of a manifestly nonobvious theorem.
CRGreathouse is offline  
July 17th, 2013, 06:40 AM   #9
Math Team
 
mathbalarka's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: India, West Bengal

Posts: 3,871
Thanks: 86

Math Focus: Number Theory
Re: Understanding the Riemann hypothesis

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
For example, in the generality you present it, there's nothing special about a continuation
Agree. Analyticity makes all the changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
It does make sense to talk about "the" analytic continuation of zeta, but only because of a manifestly nonobvious theorem.
Well, the theorem there is not only obvious to me but somewhat trivial. However, everyone has a different choice of perspectives, I'd guess.
mathbalarka is offline  
July 17th, 2013, 06:50 AM   #10
Math Team
 
Joined: Apr 2010

Posts: 2,780
Thanks: 361

Re: Understanding the Riemann hypothesis

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
We've both taken complex analysis, but I don't think Hoempa has.
Indeed, I haven't taken complex analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathbalarka
Is this to be ? Because you seem to be saying Re(z) > 1 so zeta should be at least a function of z I think.
Hoempa is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
hypothesis, riemann, understanding



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
Riemann Hypothesis. mathbalarka Number Theory 0 October 31st, 2013 12:54 AM
Proof for Riemann hypothesis and more joexian Number Theory 5 January 16th, 2013 06:13 AM
Do you believe the Riemann hypothesis? Eureka Number Theory 1 September 12th, 2011 01:07 PM
The Riemann Hypothesis and what it say MyNameIsVu Complex Analysis 2 April 16th, 2009 07:51 AM
Riemann Hypothesis Whoever Number Theory 72 February 11th, 2009 06:03 AM





Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.