RH involves limits of mobius transformations

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jonny_trigonometry
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits Transformations
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential use of limits of Möbius transformations of the zeta function in relation to the Riemann Hypothesis (RH). Participants explore the implications of these transformations for mapping non-trivial zeros into an annulus and the application of the argument principle in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that using limits of Möbius transformations could help in proving the RH by mapping zeros into an annulus and applying the argument principle as the annulus' radii converge.
  • Another participant questions the necessity of this transformation, suggesting that the critical strip can be analyzed directly and noting the established existence of infinitely many zeros on the critical line.
  • A different participant mentions the need to show there are no zeros outside the critical strip, indicating that a transformation might facilitate the use of the argument principle.
  • It is noted that the argument principle can count zeros accurately within a strip, but challenges arise when trying to apply it inside the strip without prior knowledge of zero locations.
  • One participant expresses curiosity about the argument principle's application beyond the unit circle and reflects on the complexity of analyzing the critical line.
  • Another participant suggests that transformations are often used in complex analysis to extend results from simpler cases, such as circles, to more complex regions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the utility of Möbius transformations in the context of the RH, with some advocating for their use while others prefer direct analysis of the critical strip. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the effectiveness of these approaches.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the behavior of zeros in the critical strip and the application of the argument principle, which may depend on prior results that have not been established within the discussion.

Jonny_trigonometry
Messages
451
Reaction score
0
I was wondering if one of the approaches to proving the RH involves limits of mobius transformations of the zeta function on the right side of the imaginary axis such that all the non-trivial zeros get mapped into an annulus; this annulus is then shown to contain an infinite number of zeros via the argument principle in the lim as the annulus' radii converge to the same value. In the lim, you have a mobius transformation of the critical line to the circumferance of the unit circle.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see the point of this transformation when you can work with the critical strip just as easily.

Also, we already know there are infinitely many zeros on the critical line.
 
hmm... The second part of the proof involves showing that there are no zeros on the right and left sides of the critical strip (on the right side of the imaginary axis), i was thinking that a transformation would let you use the argument principle. Eh, obviously I don't have any idea how to approach the RH.
 
The argument principle is used to count zeros in the strip, using a rectangle whose vertical sides lie outside the strip itself. You run into troubles if you try to move this inside the strip as you need bounds for [tex]\zeta'(s)/\zeta(s)[/tex] on your rectangle. You're only going to be able to do this if you've already proven there's no zeros here, which kinda defeats the purpose.

You can be quite accurate with the argument principle to count roots. Accurate enough that you can determine exactly the number of roots up to a given height, then if you can find that number of roots on the critical line you can prove RH up to this height.
 
Very interesting. From what I knew, I thought the argument principle works only for inside the unit circle... I've never really thought about how to analyze the critical line until I took complex analysis. It just beckons a person to try and prove the RH for a rectangle increasingly tall, then again, that is why it's an attractive problem, and its elusiveness is even more attractive.
 
Jonny_trigonometry said:
Very interesting. From what I knew, I thought the argument principle works only for inside the unit circle...

Often in complex analysis you prove something for the simpler case of circles centered at the origin then apply some transformation that takes these cricles to other regions.

You might want to look up the "Riemann-von Mangoldt formula" to see how they count the zeros in the strip.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
9K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
12K