Prerequisites for understanding Riemann's zeta function?

Click For Summary
Understanding Riemann's zeta function requires a solid foundation in basic real analysis and complex analysis. Key topics include rigorous proofs, continuity, sequences, series, limits, holomorphic functions, and contour integration. Familiarity with Cauchy's integral formula and analytic number theory is also essential for deeper comprehension. The discussion highlights the variability in mathematical backgrounds among physics graduates, suggesting that additional study may be necessary. Recommended resources include "Undergraduate Analysis" by Serge Lang and "Complex Analysis" by Theodore Gamelin for those looking to strengthen their knowledge.
cragwolf
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
I am wondering what are the prerequisites required for learning the theory behind Riemann's zeta function, starting from a base of mathematics that an average physics graduate might have. In particular, I want to be able to understand a book like this:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486417409/?tag=pfamazon01-20 by H. M. Edwards
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi cragwolf, I have this book and could understand it in my third year (of a mathematics degree).. I'm not sure how much mathematics the average physics graduate has? Judging from people I've met it must vary significantly..

The main prerequisites are basic real analysis (rigourous proofs, continuity, sequences, series and limits, various convergence theorems, possible Riemann-Stieljes integration [just how the notation works, not a proof that it exists for smooth functions etc.]) then complex analysis (you definitely need to know about holomorphic functions, countour integration, Cauchy's integral formula, intergration involving around simple poles).

I assume you probably have experience with some of the above. Edwards makes the (I think) deliberate point of missing out certain steps when manipulating equations - e.g. he says "upon applying Cauchy's integral formula we get..", and you will have to work out exactly how he applied it and the subsequent manipulations or simplifications.. but this makes it a more rewarding read when you can follow it.
 
olliemath said:
Hi cragwolf, I have this book and could understand it in my third year (of a mathematics degree).. I'm not sure how much mathematics the average physics graduate has? Judging from people I've met it must vary significantly..

Heheh, I purposely chose a rather vague measure because I'm not sure what I remember of my mathematical education. Thanks for the information. Looks like I'll need to study up on real analysis and complex analysis.

For real analysis I'm deciding between Undergraduate Analysis by Serge Lang or Real Mathematical Analysis by Charles Pugh. Rudin scares me and my wallet. For complex analysis I'm thinking that Complex Analysis by Theodore Gamelin might be the choice. Also, I'm not sure whether I should read up on number theory.
 
You'll certainly need analytic number theory, so unless you're already familiar you should add that to the list.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
808
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K