What are non-trivial zeros in reference to the Riemann Hypothesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter whatzzupboy
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Non-trivial zeros in reference to the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) are defined as the non-negative integers that are not trivial solutions, which are the negative integers. These non-trivial zeros occur on the critical line where the real part of z equals 1/2, specifically in the form of 1/2 + iy, where y is a real number. The Riemann Hypothesis posits that all non-trivial zeros of the zeta function lie on this critical line. The distinction between trivial and non-trivial zeros is crucial for understanding the distribution of prime numbers. Ultimately, the RH remains an unsolved problem in mathematics, with significant implications for number theory.
whatzzupboy
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
What exactly do they mean when they say "Non-trvial zeros" in reffrence to the RH?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
non trivial solutions to a rhe are solutions that are not trivial or ones that arent zero
 
whatzzupboy said:
What exactly do they mean when they say "Non-trvial zeros" in reffrence to the RH?
Zeros other than the negative integers. The zeroes at negative integers are obvious, and do not effect the interesting properties the other zeroes do.
In other words the RH says
if zeta(z)=0
then
z is a negative integer
or
Re(z)=1/2
that is x=1/2+i y for some real number y
 

Thread 'Errors and significant figures'

I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
View full post »
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'

Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'

Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
View full post »

Similar threads

Insights The Extended Riemann Hypothesis and Ramanujan’s Sum
Replies
3
Views
2K
Insights The History and Importance of the Riemann Hypothesis
Replies
0
Views
2K
I Connection of zeta to primes: less Euler than error or L-functions?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Transformation Riemann tensor to an accelerating frame
Replies
10
Views
1K
I What are the Zeta Function and the Riemann Hypothesis?
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Category Theory and the Riemann Hypothesis
Replies
2
Views
2K
Calculate center of rotation of monocopter
Replies
17
Views
1K
What is zero error of a measuring instrument ?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Where is the usual sensationalism? (Riemann Hypothesis)
Replies
10
Views
2K
How much time do I have to catch a coin?
Replies
2
Views
853

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top