Is the Riemann Hypothesis Finally Proven?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter imag94
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a proposed proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, which asserts that the real part of the roots of the Riemann zeta function is ½. The thread explores historical context, mathematical derivations, and potential errors in the proof presented by the original poster.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster claims to have proven that the real part of the Riemann zeta function is ½ through various mathematical derivations and integrals.
  • Some participants challenge the mathematical transformations used in the proof, suggesting that there may be errors in the typesetting and assumptions made.
  • One participant points out a potential translation error in the original proof regarding the logarithmic transformations, which could affect the validity of the argument.
  • Another participant argues that the relationships presented in the proof do not hold true mathematically, asserting that the equations have no solutions.
  • There is criticism regarding the clarity and correctness of the typesetting in the original post, which some participants believe undermines the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the proof and the mathematical transformations involved. Multiple competing views remain, and the discussion is unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential errors in the mathematical expressions and transformations, which may depend on specific interpretations of logarithmic and exponential relationships. The discussion highlights the complexity and nuances involved in proving the Riemann Hypothesis.

imag94
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
<br /> <br /> Proof for Riemann Hypothesis<br /> <br /> Abstract: Proof of Riemann’s hypothesis that the real part of the solution of Zeta function is ½ is proved. Historical development of this area of Mathematics from Gauss, Legrange, Euler, Riemann to Hilbert is discussed. Initially a surrogate for zeta function is derived and using Cauchy principal number of integration between bounds it is proved that the real part of Riemann zeta function is ½. Also in the graph_3 the area between 2 and ½ is zero proving again the same. Then a differential equation with c=3 is derived and the solution to it’s reciprocal which is the zeta function again gives the same result the real part of the root as ½. Now c is derived differently from first principles as 0.25 and the real part of it’s root is found to be again ½. It’s graph which is Graph_8 is found to be similar to Graph_3 the surrogate. The different scales might make them look slightly different, one is using decimal numbers and one using trigonometric numbers. Finally the differential equation is taken which is primal of the reciprocals and it’s root is found to be 2 proving again ½ which is its reciprocal as the real part of the zeta function.<br /> <br /> Subscription: Legrange and Gauss conjured that п(x) the function counting all the primes <br /> <br /> less than x asymptotically approaches Li(x) meaning п(x)/Li(x) tend to 1, where,<br /> <br /> Li(x) =\int_2 ^n \frac {dx}{ln(x)} dxEuler created a time series solution to the function Li(x) and Riemann named it the ξ <br /> <br /> function adding his own solution to Euler’s work. <br /> <br /> In Riemann’s words “a value x is the root of a function f(x) if f(x)=0. A root of the <br /> <br /> function ξ(x) is real if and only if the root of the zeta function is complex number with <br /> <br /> real part equal to ½”.<br /> <br /> Proving the real part to be ½ was left undone by Riemann. Hilbert later on added, finding <br /> <br /> the proof for Riemann hypothesis as one of the problem that remain un resolved in <br /> <br /> Mathematics.<br /> <br /> I start where Riemann left his hypothesis without the proof.<br /> <br /> As said earlier <br /> <br /> Li(x) =\int_2 ^n \frac {dx}{ln(x)} dxNow,<br /> Assume a = \Ln x^x<br /> x^x = e^{x.ln x}<br /> a = x\ln (x)<br /> \ln x =\frac {a}{x}<br /> <br /> \xi (x) =\int _2 ^n \frac {x}{a} dx<br /> <br /> <br /> = = \frac {x^2}{2a}<br /> <br /> Now to get the Error estimate we add п/ln(x) to the above function.<br /> <br /> Then if we graph the zeta function <br /> <br /> \frac {x^2}{2a} + \frac {\pi}{ln x} <br /> <br /> we see the root falling at exactly<br /> <br /> That is area under the graph between 2 and ½ is zero. <br /> <br /> If this integral is evaluated between 2 and ½ we will see that the zeta function going to 0. <br /> <br /> The integral is evaluated using Cauchy’s principal number 1, between limits 2 and 1 and <br /> <br /> then 1 and 1/2<br /> <br /> That is, <br /> \frac {x^2}{2Ln x^x}_2 ^1 + \frac {x^2}{2Ln x^x}_1 ^1/2<br /> <br /> = 1/(2. ln (1)) – 4/(2. ln(4)) + 0.707/(2.ln(0.707) – 1/(2.ln(1)) =0 <br /> <br /> This concludes the proof that Rieman’s Zeta function has it’s root as ½ +/- i0 since the area under the under the zeta function between these limits 2 and 1/2 is zero. We can reduce the zeta function to a second order differential equation which is seen to be elliptical in nature. <br /> <br /> Error Estimate Note<br /> <br /> Taking the McLauien series of the Zeta function in proper form,<br /> <br /> ie; f(0)= A0 + A0 . f’(0)/1! +A(0) f “(0)/2!+…….., we see that it grows at the rate of п <br /> <br /> Taking A0=1 the initial r of the Spiral observed by taking the polar form of the Zeta <br /> <br /> function we have,<br /> <br /> F1(0)=1+1. (dr/dt)/1! =2<br /> <br /> F2(0)=1+2. (dr/dt)/1!=3 and so on.<br /> <br /> If we take trigonometric scale these become п, 2п, 3п and so on.<br /> <br /> which makes the error estimate as <br /> <br /> п x 1/ln(x) or п/ln (x).<br /> <br /> Here we see that the Zeta function grows at the rate of √2 or ln(п) as x grows as e√2=п, which is <br /> <br /> the proper form of en.log n the exponential growth which shows that zeta function values <br /> <br /> changes by 1.414 for each successive change in x which gives the zeta function it’s <br /> <br /> meaning..<br /> <br /> The Spiral observed can be the spiral similar to the Planetary spiral of the Solar System <br /> <br /> or the Milky way.<br /> Conclusion<br /> Rieman’s Zeta function whose roots are ½ +/-0 remain proved.<br /> <br /> Reference: “God Created Integers” Steven Hawking PP822 <br /> ______________<br /> Mathew Cherian <br /> <br />
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
imag94 said:
Assume a = \Ln x^x
x^x = e^{x.ln x}
a = x\ln (x)

Here's the first mistake I saw.
 
<br /> You haven&#039;t noticed the transformation may be it is a translation errror, it should be read as,<br /> <br /> a= \ln (x)^x<br /> The rational is since x is a unique value for any number say n we can take x^x as a constant,<br /> then,<br /> a =\ln x^x = x. \ln x (taking logrithm on both sides)<br /> <br /> I think it is a translation error and if you miss this transformation then the proof is difficult unless you go through other routes which I abstain here. One has to come through the reciprocal (for 1/ln x)of the expanded differential equation of the series expanstion of log function which is,<br /> <br /> \ln x = \frac {x-1}{x-2} + \frac {1}{3} \frac {x-3}{x-4} + \frac {1}{5} \frac {x-5}{x-6) ....<br /> <br /> Again the expanded version should be integrated using Cauchy&#039;s principal number.<br /> <br />
 
Rationale has nothing to do with it.

a = x^x
...
a = x ln x

Can be true if and only if x^x = x ln x = ln (x^x). Coincidentally, this equation has *no* solutions at all.

Now let's pretend you meant

a = x^x
...
a = ln(x)^x

Here, x^x = ln(x)^x <=> x = ln(x) which is never true, either.


Sorry, I don't see it. The correct relationship would be:

a = x^x
ln a = x ln x.
 
I don't think there's any point to this thread if the opening poster isn't even going to bother to get the typesetting correct!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
12K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K