Exploring the Riemann Hypothesis and Analytic Continuation

sparsh12
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I don't know anything of complex analysis or analytic number theory or analytic continuation. But i read about zeta function and riemann hypothesis over wikipedia, clay institute's website and few other sources. I started with original zeta function

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7184/86023001.jpg

and then for complex s of form a+ib, where a and b are real,it would be

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/2746/62003747.jpg

Then i did few things and it became,

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/879/19378823.jpg

It can be observed that above relation is actually,

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3409/42615034.jpg

and if reimann hypothesis is true, first term diverges in above equation, which would in turn mean second term must tend to -∞.

Now my questions are:
1)Am i on right path? I have plans to start real and complex analysis soon. Would above progress be useful?
2)Has anyone around got any idea of proving second term tending to -∞ without assuming riemann hypothesis true? Won't this method help prove reimann hypothesis true? As far as i understand, all solutions of above zeta function satisfies riemann zeta function(one of analytic continuation).

If i talked nonsense above, please rectify me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The summation formula for the zeta function is only valid for real part of s greater than 1. Where the non-trivial zeros lye is not in this region hence your problem. Showing that the second term diverges wouldn't be so helpful either since it would probably diverge for any a<1 and not just a = 1/2. I like your enthusiasm of the problem though. I've had some interest of it in the past and have this book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486417409/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I haven't had the patience to get very far in it so I wouldn't be helpful answering questions. Maybe others with more knowledge can recommend some resources for you to look into. Go learn more of analytic continuation though, it is interesting stuff.
 
sparsh12 said:
I don't know anything of complex analysis or analytic number theory or analytic continuation. But i read about zeta function and riemann hypothesis over wikipedia, clay institute's website and few other sources. I started with original zeta function

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7184/86023001.jpg

and then for complex s of form a+ib, where a and b are real,it would be

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/2746/62003747.jpg

Then i did few things and it became,

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/879/19378823.jpg

It can be observed that above relation is actually,

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3409/42615034.jpg

and if reimann hypothesis is true, first term diverges in above equation, which would in turn mean second term must tend to -∞.

Now my questions are:
1)Am i on right path? I have plans to start real and complex analysis soon. Would above progress be useful?
2)Has anyone around got any idea of proving second term tending to -∞ without assuming riemann hypothesis true? Won't this method help prove reimann hypothesis true? As far as i understand, all solutions of above zeta function satisfies riemann zeta function(one of analytic continuation).

If i talked nonsense above, please rectify me.



I agree with the other answerer about the kudos to you for your interest, but in general I'm afraid you won't get very far away without a robust basis in basic number theory and complex analysis.

The (Euler-)Riemann Zeta Function and all the stuff around it are, imho, one of the most fascinating and beautiful of all subjects in mathematics, but it is not elementary stuff.

You could try some of the basic theory books in the bibliography in the book given by the other answerer (Edward's) and begin learning that.

Tonio

Tonio
 
Last edited by a moderator:
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top