MHB What are the $\rho$ values in the zeros of the Zeta function?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the $\rho$ values, which are the zeros of the Riemann zeta function, $\zeta(s)$. The function has a pole at $s=1$ due to a singularity in the series inside the exponential. The zeros at various $s=\rho$ arise from the same series having specific values where it equals zero. It is emphasized that the entire function, including the exponential, must be considered to understand the behavior of poles and zeros. The relationship between the singularities and zeros highlights the complexity of the zeta function's analytic properties.
mathworker
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
In an article it is given that,

$$\zeta(s)=\text{exp}
(\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{\Lambda{(n)}}{\text{log}(n)}n^{-s})$$​

$\zeta(s)$ has pole at $s=1$ and zeroes at several $s=\rho$.
here i think he considered the function inside the exponential rather than whole exponential to obtain poles and zeroes but I think we should consider it along with exponential or can we?.Or does he consider the entire function if so how does it have pole at s=1 and zeroes at $$s=\rho$$
what are those several $\rho$'s?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The expression $\zeta(s)$ given in the article is a complex analytic function, so it can have both poles and zeroes. The pole at $s=1$ is due to the fact that the function inside the exponential (i.e. $\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{\Lambda{(n)}}{\text{log}(n)}n^{-s}$) has a singularity at $s=1$. The zeroes at several $s=\rho$ are due to the fact that the same function inside the exponential has zeroes at certain values of $s$. These values of $s$ are the several $\rho$'s referred to in the article.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K