I have two questions:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Why hasn't the hypothesis been proved yet? Is it because we don't know why re(s) has to be 1/2 and thus can't prove it, or is it because we knowwhyre(s) has to be 1/2 but we just don't know how to prove it.

Why exactly does re(s) have to be 1/2?

[tex] \zeta (s)=1/(1-2^(1-s)) \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}1/(2^(n+1)) \sum_{k=0}^{n} (-1)^k (n ; k) (k+1)^{-s} [/tex]

If re(s) is greater than 0, and if im(s) is any real number, doesn't the function always converge to zero? In the above equation, as k approaches infinity, the denominator of the term, [tex](k+1)^{1-s}[/tex], always approaches infinity, for any value of re(s)>0, which in turn, has the series approaching zero, always. Please help me understand where I am wrong.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Riemann hypothesis

Loading...

Similar Threads - Riemann hypothesis | Date |
---|---|

Riemann Hypothesis equivalence | Oct 13, 2011 |

Riemann hypothesis and number theory | Mar 2, 2011 |

The clue to the proof of Riemann hypothesis | Jan 25, 2011 |

Elliott-Halberstam conjecture and the Riemann Hypothesis | Jan 8, 2011 |

Riemann Hypothesis and Quantum Mechanics | Dec 21, 2010 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**