Sequel for my proof for Riemann's hypothesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter imag94
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
imag94
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
<br /> <br /> Sequel to my Proof for Riemann Hypothesis.<br /> <br /> Riemann conjured that the function <br /> \xi = \int \frac {1}{\ln(x)} <br /> has a root at \frac{1}{2} when s=2<br /> <br /> Let <br /> f ^-1 (x)=\frac{1}{\ln (x)}<br /> f(x)= e^ \frac {1}{ln (x)}<br /> Taking log on both sides, \frac {1}{\ln(x)} = \ln e^\frac{1}{1/ln (x)}<br /> Integrating both sides,<br /> \int \frac {1}{ln(x)}= \int \ln e^{1}{ln x}<br /> \int \ln(e^\\frac {1}{ln (x)} = e^ \ln (e^\frac{1}{ln (x)}<br /> <br /> Value of \xi function is got by taking the integral between 2 and that number.<br /> Taking limits of r.h.s from \frac{1}{2} to 1 and from 1 to 2 and adding them up for finding the value of the \xi function at \frac {1}{2} due to Cauchy’s principal numbers method. <br /> We get,<br /> e^\ln e^ \infty – e^ \ln e^\frac{1){0.5} + e^ \ln e^0.5 – e^ \ln e^\infty<br /> (\infty - 0.2363) + (4.2321 - \infty)<br /> Here we see that small numbers are added to uncountable infinity which preserve infinity value and so the equation becomes,<br /> [Tes]\infty - \infty = 0

thus proving Riemann hypothesis that \xi has a root at \frac {1}{2}

Mathew Cherian

[\Tex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I posted using Tex code exactly as given in the tutorial, and it seems not functioning in both my attempts. Please advice.
 
imag94 said:
I posted using Tex code exactly as given in the tutorial, and it seems not functioning in both my attempts. Please advice.

do not capitalize ... tex not Tex

This has tex ... \frac{1}{2}
This is the same thing with Tex ... \frac{1}{2}
As you can probably see, it does not produce the intended result.
 
imag94 said:
Riemann conjured that the function
\xi = \int \frac {1}{\ln(x)}
has a root at \frac{1}{2} when s=2

Mathew, your function is not the Riemann zeta function and your hypothesis is not the Riemann hypothesis. The Riemann hypothesis claims that the only non-trivial zeroes the Riemann zeta function (i.e., values with non-zero imaginary part that are zeroes of the Riemann zeta function) have real part equal to 1/2.


Here we see that small numbers are added to uncountable infinity which preserve infinity value and so the equation becomes,
\infty - \infty = 0

thus proving Riemann hypothesis ...

Mathew, any proof based on infinity - infinity being zero is not a valid proof.
 
imag94 said:
Sequel to my Proof for Riemann Hypothesis.

Riemann conjured that the function
\xi = \int \frac {1}{\ln(x)}
has a root at \frac{1}{2} when s=2

Let
f ^-1 (x)=\frac{1}{\ln (x)}
f(x)= e^ \frac {1}{ln (x)}
Taking log on both sides, \frac {1}{\ln(x)} = \ln e^\frac{1}{1/ln (x)}
Integrating both sides,
\int \frac {1}{ln(x)}= \int \ln e^{1}{ln x}
\int \ln(e^\\frac {1}{ln (x)} = e^ \ln (e^\frac{1}{ln (x)}

Value of \xi function is got by taking the integral between 2 and that number.
Taking limits of r.h.s from \frac{1}{2} to 1 and from 1 to 2 and adding them up for finding the value of the \xi function at \frac {1}{2} due to Cauchy’s principal numbers method.
We get,
e^\ln e^ \infty – e^ \ln e^\frac{1){0.5} + e^ \ln e^0.5 – e^ \ln e^\infty
(\infty - 0.2363) + (4.2321 - \infty)
Here we see that small numbers are added to uncountable infinity which preserve infinity value and so the equation becomes,
\infty - \infty = 0

thus proving Riemann hypothesis that \xi has a root at \frac {1}{2}

Mathew Cherian

I tried correcting from Tex to tex. Otherwise no changes made. I believe you need to put {} around a few of the argments as needed. The subject is outside my scope, but it seems to me that you cannot ignore the 0.2363 or 4.2321 unless you are dealing with subtracting or adding fractions with infinity as the denominator of the fractions.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top