Mixing
Does $N_0(T) =N(T)$ where $N$ is the exact Riemann $zeta$ zero counting function and $N_0$ is the approximate zero counting function imply the RH?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
From A theory for the zeros of Riemann ζ and other L-functions
The main new result is that the zeros on the critical line are in one-to- one correspondence with the zeros of the cosine function, and this leads to a transcendental equation for the n-th zero on the critical line that depends only on $n$. If there is a unique solution to this equation for every n, then if $N_0(T)$ is the number of zeros on the critical line, then
$N_0(T) =N(T)$, i.e. all zeros are on the critical line.
Has this criteria been accepted as proving the RH if it were proven to be true?
Last I checked with the author, he said people in the math community still haven't accepted even that criteria and it seems pretty clear to me that it is a good criteria.
asymptotics roots riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis
asked Jul 22 at 17:29
crow
492416
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
From A theory for the zeros of Riemann ζ and other L-functions
The main new result is that the zeros on the critical line are in one-to- one correspondence with the zeros of the cosine function, and this leads to a transcendental equation for the n-th zero on the critical line that depends only on $n$. If there is a unique solution to this equation for every n, then if $N_0(T)$ is the number of zeros on the critical line, then
$N_0(T) =N(T)$, i.e. all zeros are on the critical line.
Has this criteria been accepted as proving the RH if it were proven to be true?
Last I checked with the author, he said people in the math community still haven't accepted even that criteria and it seems pretty clear to me that it is a good criteria.
asymptotics roots riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis
asked Jul 22 at 17:29
crow
492416
(126) in the paper seems to come out of nowhere. Where is it proven?
– barto
Jul 31 at 17:52
@barto: The argument follows in the next few pages. However, the overall feel of the paper is "Here's an equation that all zeros on the critical line must satisfy. Notice that things go bad in this equation if nontrivial zeros exist, so they probably don't."
– Alex R.
Jul 31 at 17:58
@AlexR. As I understand it, everything that follows is under the assumption that they're working with a zero satisfying (126). Given previous comments I give up trying to understand :p
– barto
Jul 31 at 18:10
@barto wow you are going to let random internet comments stop you? This is probably what leclaire meant when he said he was very disappointed in the "math community"
– crow
Aug 2 at 17:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
From A theory for the zeros of Riemann ζ and other L-functions
The main new result is that the zeros on the critical line are in one-to- one correspondence with the zeros of the cosine function, and this leads to a transcendental equation for the n-th zero on the critical line that depends only on $n$. If there is a unique solution to this equation for every n, then if $N_0(T)$ is the number of zeros on the critical line, then
$N_0(T) =N(T)$, i.e. all zeros are on the critical line.
Has this criteria been accepted as proving the RH if it were proven to be true?
Last I checked with the author, he said people in the math community still haven't accepted even that criteria and it seems pretty clear to me that it is a good criteria.
asymptotics roots riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis
asked Jul 22 at 17:29
crow
492416
From A theory for the zeros of Riemann ζ and other L-functions
The main new result is that the zeros on the critical line are in one-to- one correspondence with the zeros of the cosine function, and this leads to a transcendental equation for the n-th zero on the critical line that depends only on $n$. If there is a unique solution to this equation for every n, then if $N_0(T)$ is the number of zeros on the critical line, then
$N_0(T) =N(T)$, i.e. all zeros are on the critical line.
Has this criteria been accepted as proving the RH if it were proven to be true?
Last I checked with the author, he said people in the math community still haven't accepted even that criteria and it seems pretty clear to me that it is a good criteria.
asymptotics roots riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis
asked Jul 22 at 17:29
crow
492416
edited Jul 31 at 16:38
asked Jul 22 at 17:29
crow
492416
asked Jul 22 at 17:29
crow
492416
asked Jul 22 at 17:29
crow
492416
492416
(126) in the paper seems to come out of nowhere. Where is it proven?
– barto
Jul 31 at 17:52
@barto: The argument follows in the next few pages. However, the overall feel of the paper is "Here's an equation that all zeros on the critical line must satisfy. Notice that things go bad in this equation if nontrivial zeros exist, so they probably don't."
– Alex R.
Jul 31 at 17:58
@AlexR. As I understand it, everything that follows is under the assumption that they're working with a zero satisfying (126). Given previous comments I give up trying to understand :p
– barto
Jul 31 at 18:10
@barto wow you are going to let random internet comments stop you? This is probably what leclaire meant when he said he was very disappointed in the "math community"
– crow
Aug 2 at 17:05
add a comment |Â
(126) in the paper seems to come out of nowhere. Where is it proven?
– barto
Jul 31 at 17:52
@barto: The argument follows in the next few pages. However, the overall feel of the paper is "Here's an equation that all zeros on the critical line must satisfy. Notice that things go bad in this equation if nontrivial zeros exist, so they probably don't."
– Alex R.
Jul 31 at 17:58
@AlexR. As I understand it, everything that follows is under the assumption that they're working with a zero satisfying (126). Given previous comments I give up trying to understand :p
– barto
Jul 31 at 18:10
@barto wow you are going to let random internet comments stop you? This is probably what leclaire meant when he said he was very disappointed in the "math community"
– crow
Aug 2 at 17:05
(126) in the paper seems to come out of nowhere. Where is it proven?
– barto
Jul 31 at 17:52
(126) in the paper seems to come out of nowhere. Where is it proven?
– barto
Jul 31 at 17:52
@barto: The argument follows in the next few pages. However, the overall feel of the paper is "Here's an equation that all zeros on the critical line must satisfy. Notice that things go bad in this equation if nontrivial zeros exist, so they probably don't."
– Alex R.
Jul 31 at 17:58
@barto: The argument follows in the next few pages. However, the overall feel of the paper is "Here's an equation that all zeros on the critical line must satisfy. Notice that things go bad in this equation if nontrivial zeros exist, so they probably don't."
– Alex R.
Jul 31 at 17:58
@AlexR. As I understand it, everything that follows is under the assumption that they're working with a zero satisfying (126). Given previous comments I give up trying to understand :p
– barto
Jul 31 at 18:10
@AlexR. As I understand it, everything that follows is under the assumption that they're working with a zero satisfying (126). Given previous comments I give up trying to understand :p
– barto
Jul 31 at 18:10
@barto wow you are going to let random internet comments stop you? This is probably what leclaire meant when he said he was very disappointed in the "math community"
– crow
Aug 2 at 17:05
@barto wow you are going to let random internet comments stop you? This is probably what leclaire meant when he said he was very disappointed in the "math community"
– crow
Aug 2 at 17:05
add a comment |Â
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2859606%2fdoes-n-0t-nt-where-n-is-the-exact-riemann-zeta-zero-counting-functio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
(126) in the paper seems to come out of nowhere. Where is it proven?
– barto
Jul 31 at 17:52
@barto: The argument follows in the next few pages. However, the overall feel of the paper is "Here's an equation that all zeros on the critical line must satisfy. Notice that things go bad in this equation if nontrivial zeros exist, so they probably don't."
– Alex R.
Jul 31 at 17:58
@AlexR. As I understand it, everything that follows is under the assumption that they're working with a zero satisfying (126). Given previous comments I give up trying to understand :p
– barto
Jul 31 at 18:10
@barto wow you are going to let random internet comments stop you? This is probably what leclaire meant when he said he was very disappointed in the "math community"
– crow
Aug 2 at 17:05