Trivial zeros in the Riemann Zeta function

Click For Summary
The trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function are exclusively the negative even integers due to the functional equation, where sin(πx/2) equals zero at these points. Positive even integers do not qualify as trivial zeros because, at these values, the poles of the gamma function are canceled by the zeros of the sine function, resulting in a removable singularity rather than a zero. The zeta function is also well-defined for positive even integers through its Dirichlet series, which converges for these values. Thus, while sin(k·π) equals zero for both positive and negative integers, the behavior of the zeta function at positive even integers prevents them from being classified as trivial zeros. This distinction is crucial for understanding the properties of the Riemann zeta function.
msariols
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello, I have read in many articles that the trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function are only the negative even integers (-2, -4, -6, -8, -10, ...).

The reason why these are the only ones is that when substituting them in the functional equation, the function is 0 because sin(\frac{x·\pi}{2})=0.

My question is: why aren't positive even integers trivial zeros too?

The sinus of k·\pi =0 with either k\inZ positive or negative.Remember that the functional equation is:

\zeta(x)=\zeta(1-x)·\Gamma (1-x)·2^{x}·\pi^{x-1}·sin (\frac{x·\pi}{2})
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At the even integers, the simple poles of \Gamma(1-z) are canceled by the simple zeros of \sin(\pi z/2) and since the poles and zeros are of the same order (simple), this cancelation is non-zero, that is, the singularity is a removable one. For example consider the limit:

\lim_{x\to 4} \; \Gamma(1-x) \sin(\pi x/2)=\frac{\pi}{12}
 
also because at the positive even integers, the zeta function is defined the Dirichlet series 1+1/2^s+1/3^s+1/4^s+... which converges for all positive even numbers.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
6K