Insights The History and Importance of the Riemann Hypothesis

AI Thread Summary
The Riemann Hypothesis, introduced by Bernhard Riemann in 1859, posits that all non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function lie on the critical line, a concept crucial to number theory. Its historical roots trace back to early mentions of prime numbers, with significant developments occurring from Euclid's Elements in the 3rd century BC to Hilbert's problems in 1900. The Extended Riemann Hypothesis (ERH) extends this idea to L-functions, impacting modern cryptography, particularly the RSA encryption algorithm, which relies on the complexity of prime factorization. The relationship between prime numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis highlights the evolution of prime number theory, especially from the 19th century onward. Understanding this hypothesis remains vital for advancements in both mathematics and computer science.
fresh_42
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
2024 Award
Messages
20,684
Reaction score
28,045
The Riemann Hypothesis is one of the most famous and long-standing unsolved problems in mathematics, specifically in the field of number theory. It's named after the German mathematician Bernhard Riemann, who introduced the hypothesis in 1859.

  • RH: All non-trivial zeros of the Riemannian zeta function lie on the critical line.
  • ERH: All zeros of L-functions to complex Dirichlet characters of finite cyclic groups within the critical strip lie on the critical line.
  • Related Article: The Extended Riemann Hypothesis and Ramanujan’s Sum
The history of the Riemann hypothesis may be considered to start with the first mention of prime numbers in the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus around 1550 BC. It certainly began with the first treatise of prime numbers in Euclid's Elements in the 3rd century BC. It came to a - hopefully temporary - end on the 8th of August 1900 on the list of Hilbert's famous problems. And primes are the reason why we are more than ever interested in the question of whether ERH holds or not. E.g. the RSA encryption algorithm (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman, 1977) relies on the complexity of the factorization problem FP, that it is NP-hard. FP is probably neither NP-complete nor in P but we do not know for sure. Early factorization algorithms that ran in a reasonable time had to assume the extended Riemann hypothesis (Lenstra, 1988, [1]). So what do prime numbers have in common with the Riemann hypothesis which is about a function defined as a Dirichlet series?
$$
\zeta(s)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \dfrac{1}{n^s}
$$
One has to admit that what we call prime number theory today originated in the 19th century when Dirichlet began in 1837 to apply analysis to number theory. There is a large gap between Euclid and Euler who published a new proof for the infinite number of primes in 1737.

Continue reading ...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Steve4Physics, yucheng, Janosh89 and 6 others
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top