Is the Riemann Hypothesis Equivalent to S=2Z?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the potential equivalence of the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) to the assertion that the sum S equals twice the sum Z, where S is defined in terms of the imaginary parts of the Riemann Zeros. Participants explore the implications of the RH being true or false and examine relationships involving the Riemann Zeta function and its zeros.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a function defined as \(\sum_{\rho} (\rho )^{-1} = Z\) and questions whether the Riemann Hypothesis is equivalent to \(S = 2Z\), where \(S = \sum_{\gamma}\frac{1}{1/4+ \gamma ^{2}}\) and \(\gamma\) represents the imaginary parts of the Riemann Zeros.
  • Another participant suggests that if the RH is false, the conjugate zeros would not lie on the critical line, which could affect the sums involved.
  • A further contribution indicates that the zeros exhibit a mirrored behavior across the real line, with implications for the sums being discussed.
  • One participant claims to have derived a result related to the sum of the imaginary parts of the Riemann Zeros, referencing the Riemann-Weil formula, but expresses skepticism about the validity of the result.
  • There is a clarification regarding the term "Riemann Zeros," with a focus on the non-trivial zeros located on the critical strip.
  • A participant reflects on the relationship between the zeta function and the non-trivial zeros, noting a connection to the reflection property of the real line and the implications for the hypothesis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the Riemann Hypothesis and its relationship to the sums defined. There is no consensus on the equivalence of the RH to \(S = 2Z\), and the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in their understanding and the complexity of the relationships being discussed, particularly regarding the reflective properties and intersections of the non-trivial zeros.

zetafunction
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
let be the function \sum_{\rho} (\rho )^{-1} =Z


and let be the sum S= \sum_{\gamma}\frac{1}{1/4+ \gamma ^{2}}

here 'gamma' runs over the imaginary part of the Riemann Zeros

then is the Riemann Hypothesis equivalent to the assertion that S=2Z ??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. What happens if the RH is false? That means the conjugate zeros are off the critical line and symmetric to it (they come in four's in that case and not just two). How would that affect the two sums if that happened?
 
In other words it is mirrored. If goes up in the uper half, it will be opposite in the bottom half.
The real line is the mirror line.
 
i got the desired result in

however it seems to good to be true http://vixra.org/pdf/1110.0041v1.pdf

manage to prove that \sum_{t}(1/4+t ^{2})^{-1}=2+ \gamma -log(4\pi)

here 't' runs over the imaginary part of the Riemann Zeros, i have used the Riemann-Weil formula to prove it.
 
zetafunction
What do you mean by Riemann Zeros?
Non trivial, trivial, or both??
 
lostcauses10x ..

i mean the imaginary part of the zeros ON THE CRITICAL STRIP 0<Re(s)<1
 
zetafunction
thanks.
 
Had to give this a bit of thought. Yet when examining the couture relations of the zeta function and the non trivial zeros a relation of the reflection property of the real line also shows up with the relation of the real line with limits due to the intersect of the non trivial zeros. A perpendicular intersect.

It seems to me this relation is directly proportional to the real line, and if the hypothesis is true, this relation is directly proportional and directly related tto the reflection and imaginary parts and perpendicular intersects at the real line.

Were as this limited reflective property appears around the non trivial zeros, were it starts on the real part contour is a bit of a problem to find: even if the hypothesis is true.

Just an observation, yet interesting result of what was said here. It does put the function in a bit better perspective to me. Of course this thought process is just beginning for me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
Replies
8
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K