Enhance Your Calculus Skills with Recommended Books for Riemann Zeta Function

  • Thread starter Thread starter sparsh12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Books
sparsh12
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
i am interested in Riemann zeta function. i am in a high school.
i have good hold over calculus(at least what's required for physics).
Would Tom Apostle's Calculus I be good to further improve my skills.

What should i do next?
Real Analysis or Complex Analysis or directly analytic number theory?

Are L Ahlfors' complex analysis and Analytic Number Theory by Tom Apostle good at my level?

By the way, has Riemann hypothesis been proved?
have a look at http://www.coolissues.com/mathematics/Zeta/zeta.htm.

There are several pages by same author, on several unsolved problems,here:
http://www.coolissues.com/mathematics/Zeta/zeta.htm
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sparsh12 said:
i am interested in Riemann zeta function. i am in a high school.
i have good hold over calculus(at least what's required for physics).
Would Tom Apostle's Calculus I be good to further improve my skills.

What should i do next?
Real Analysis or Complex Analysis or directly analytic number theory?

Are L Ahlfors' complex analysis and Analytic Number Theory by Tom Apostle good at my level?

Real analysis first, then complex analysis, then basic number theory, then analytic number theory. And a strong grounding in multivariable calculus will help a lot with complex variables, so don't skip that.

If you're interested in analytic number theory, there's a book you can start reading right now and grow into as you learn more. Hardy and Wright. It's a classic.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199219869/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
Hi sparsh12, I wish you all the best in your mathematical endeavors.

Just want to mention that the links you included are by a mathematical crank. There are lots of them out there, doing their own "research", and producing results, that if true, would cause well establish facts to be wrong. James Constant is a quite sophisticated crank, he knows a fair amount of math, he can write coherently, but his conclusions are just wrong. When a crank gets a result that contradicts hundreds of years of work by the best minds on the planet, they do not pause and ponder "where did I go wrong?", instead they have an urge to inform us all about their discoveries. I Just remembered that cranky stuff isn't allowed here in the forum, so I should stop.
 
There is a lot of valid info on the net as well as invalid info.

Keep learning and reading. So far no proof of RH that I know of exists.
 
Thread 'Derivation of equations of stress tensor transformation'
Hello ! I derived equations of stress tensor 2D transformation. Some details: I have plane ABCD in two cases (see top on the pic) and I know tensor components for case 1 only. Only plane ABCD rotate in two cases (top of the picture) but not coordinate system. Coordinate system rotates only on the bottom of picture. I want to obtain expression that connects tensor for case 1 and tensor for case 2. My attempt: Are these equations correct? Is there more easier expression for stress tensor...
Back
Top