Does Randomness in Function f(n) Impact the Riemann Hypothesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zetafunction
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Argument
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the relationship between randomness in the function f(n) and the Riemann Hypothesis (RH). It examines the summatory function A(x) defined as \(\sum_{n=0}^{x}f(n)\) and its behavior under the assumption that f(n) takes values +1 and -1 with equal probability. The discussion highlights that while A(x) can be shown to be \(O(x^{1/2+e})\) under certain conditions, the Mertens function, which is deterministic, does not support the argument that RH is true based on this randomness. The law of the iterated logarithm indicates that A(x) behaves as \(O(\sqrt{x\log\log x})\) with probability one when f(n) are independent.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Riemann Hypothesis and its implications.
  • Familiarity with the Mertens function and its properties.
  • Knowledge of probability theory, particularly random variables and their expectations.
  • Basic concepts of analytic number theory and summatory functions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties and implications of the Mertens function in number theory.
  • Study the law of the iterated logarithm and its applications in probability theory.
  • Explore the implications of randomness in number theory and its relation to the Riemann Hypothesis.
  • Learn about the deterministic nature of the Mertens function and its statistical properties.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, number theorists, and researchers interested in the Riemann Hypothesis, as well as students studying probability theory and its applications in number theory.

zetafunction
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
the question is if we suppose that a function f(n) can take only two values +1 and -1 both with equal probability and define the summatory

\sum_{n=0}^{x}f(n) =A(x)

how can one prove that A(x)= O(x^{1/2+e})
?? if we set A(n)=M(n) the Mertens function and since

\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(M(n)-M(n-1))n^{-s} =1/ \zeta (s)

then is RH true by this argument? ,
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A(x) is a random variable, so you oughtn't you to be asking for something like E(A(x)), or E(A(x)^2)?
 
zetafunction said:
then is RH true by this argument?

Are you really arguing that the value of the Mertens function is independent of its argument? That seems like a non-starter to me.

At best you have a heuristic suggesting that RH 'should' be true, but there are plenty of those.
 
zetafunction said:
how can one prove that A(x)= O(x^{1/2+e})

That is true, with probability one, if f(n) are independent. In fact, the law of the iterated logarithm says that with probability one it is of order O(\sqrt{x\log\log x}).

zetafunction said:
then is RH true by this argument? ,

as CRGreathouse mentions, this does not follow because the Mertens function is deterministic and not random. It's expected to share many properties of a random sequence, but that hasn't been proven.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
887
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K