-Yes Matt,i am not good at computers but i am pretty sure that there is an algorithm to calculate my integral numerically (tell me if i am wrong and this integral can not be calculated numerically) so we wouldn,t need to know the zeroes of Riemann function.
In fact can you calculate f(n) for...
-Mine is exact whereas the integral t/ln(t) is only an approximation,the Pi(x) is not easy to obtain i am giving an exact formula to calculate it.
-yes Matt but you have x(n)-x(n-1)=f(n) you don,t know how is the form of f(n) whereas the functions involved in my integral are known functions...
Sorry sometimes i make mistakes in writting, i meant that you could obtain the integral by using numerical methods,in fact the other approximation is made by integratin from 2 to x the function t/ln(t) wich can be only calculated numerically......i,m on the same case i think still the problem of...
But the integral can be calculated using the residue theorme or by numerical methods...so i don,t think it can be useful,it,s only an integral
By the way could you tell me where co7uld i find the finite -diference equation for prime number counting function..thanks.
here your are my last contribution to number theory, i tried to send it to several journals but i had no luck and i was rejected, i think journals only want famous people works and don,t want to give an oportunity to anybody.
the work is attached to this message in .doc format only use Mellin...
But making the change of variable c+iu the integral becomes simply a Fourier inverse transform (is a integral on the real plane of exp(iu)f(c+iu)exp(ct)) so if we can have a real integral and should be able to compute it numerically.
but what would happen if i try solving it numerically for example we should calculate the integral over all R of exp(ixt)f(c+ix)exp(ct) and this would be equal to our inverse Laplace transform, the problem is what c would i choose?..thanx.
let be e>0 but small so quantum gravity is renormalizable then what would be the calculation of mass and charge of it depending on e,now let,s take the limit e--->0 what would we have?...
Let,s suppose we want to get the inverse Laplace transform of a function f(s) numerically,we should calculate the integral from (c-i8,c+i8) of exp(st)f(s) my question is what c we should choose for calculating the integral?..wouldn,t depend the integral of the value of c..where could i find the...
let,s suppose we have to perform an integral into a infinite dimensional space,then we would use the Montecarlo,s Method as it is known to be independent of the dimension of the integral, but my problem is still the same..¿how do you define a point into a infinite dimensional space?...how would...
The question is interesting when related the generating function of MOebius function
Sum(n)mu(n)/n^(4-s)=R(4-s) where the sum is from 1 to infinite then according to our formula:
R(4-s)=M[w(x))/x^3] or M^-1[R(4-s)]=w(x)mu(x)/x^3 now integrating from k-1/2 to k+1/2 we have that...
let be the function given by f(x)=w(x)t^-3mu(x) where mu(x) is the Mobius function and w(x)=Sum(1<n<infinite)d(x-n) then my question is...does the Laplace transform of this function exist and is equal to
L[f(x)]=Sum(1<n<Infinite)mu(n)/n^3
This is a special question,...is Sr quantizied?,in fact you will say yes but i don,t think so there are two reasons:
a)Lorentz transforms say that a particle travelling at light speed has length 0,when in quantum string theory is asumed that exists a minimum quantity lp distance...
-And for a given metric with line element ds^2=gabdxadxb then would be a basis in wich this metric is diagonal and ds^2=ha(dxa)^2
-If exist an Energy term then we can make H=E=ih/dt and have a Schroedinguer type equation for gravity HPhi(x)=EPhi(x)
a)Can we add extra terms with covariant derivative equal to 0 so the coupling constant in relativity is dimensionless?.
b)for a metric gab that is time independent,can we define an "energy" term E so dE/dt is conserved?...
c)from the Wheller-De Witt equation can we construct a linear...
given a frame of reference s In General Relativity in wich you meassure an interval of space dx, could we have another frame S`so the observer in that S`see that dx observed in S as a time interval dt?
and its legitimate to calculate the Laplace transform of a function defined as
Sum(1<n<infinity)d(x-n)f(x) where the d(x-n) means the Dirac,s delta function,if we define w(x)=Sum(1<n<infinity)d(x-n) then Int(a-1/2,a+1/2)w(x)f(x)=f(a) is that true?.
-In fact if quantum theory is right,"time" and "space" exist only in classical physics just as we see trajectories and particles have momentum but is nothing but an ilusion,in quantum world there is no space-time.
-Sahoshant:=perhaps you can use some kind of geometric transform to make an...
from a physical argument if plantes were black they would absorbe more energy from the sun then..why clorophile is green anbd why the plants are green?..
-You can find objetcs travelling faster than light in theories they are called tachyons their mass is imaginary and they can not go slower than light speed (the lower boudn for their speed is c).
-To Dr. Chinese:=Uum that,s right but a kilometer is not far enoguh,light takes 3,3x10^-10 seconds to run the kilometer ( i am not denying the experiment but saying perhaps is not accurate enough), so perhaps the information of a particle can jump to other and this spoils the meassure.
with...
To Dr. Chinese:= then Do you think the HuP is only a result of teh limits of our technology?..how could you prove it.
Another question when a particle is not observed? does have a momentum and position?,wehat would happen if the EPr where made with 2 particles separated a distance for example...
Then how can explain the EPR paradox? you have that [x2-x1,p1+p2]=0 so you can meassure x2-x1 and p1+p2 (hte diference betwwen the two particles and the momentum of center of mass) then another observer could meassure [x2,p1] with these we could obtain x1 and p2 for each time.
Another...
But if you can meassure the postion x if we meassure to close position,let,s call x(t+h) and x(t) taking the diference we get x(t+h)-x(t)=hv(t) and velocity v(t) is related to momentum.
Then we could try using two observables A(q,p) and B(q,p) and input c so [A,BC]=0 with tha we could know the values of A(q,p) and B(q,p)C(q,p)=D(q,p) now we have
A(q,p)=f(q,p) or f^-1(A,p)=q and if D(q,p)=g(q,p) inverting g^-1(D,q)=p and obtan p and q from this equations.
uumm..perhapas i don,t agree with Dirac,s equation it implies the existence of a metric gab whereas in quantum mechanics there is no metric or gab so i think Dirac,s equation is only an approximation to quantizying special relativity...