1
New Theories / Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« on: Yesterday at 17:48:45 »
Comparison between M function and Y function shows that Riemann's Zeta function is more permissive to irregularities /exceptions in trivial zeros rather than non-trivial zeros.
To be clear, I don't dispute the validity that all trivial zeros are on the real line. On the contrary, I want to point out that the position of non-trivial zeros on the critical line is even more robust or less shaky than the position of trivial zeros on the real line. Somehow, the latter was easier to reach consensus in the global mathematics community.
It seems like this mathematical problem of Riemann's hypothesis is more about human psychology than technical problem. We respect Riemann as a brilliant mathematician. If there's a math problem that even he couldn't solve, it must be an extremely difficult problem, so we thought. Consequently, we tend to be overthinking in trying to find the solution.
To be clear, I don't dispute the validity that all trivial zeros are on the real line. On the contrary, I want to point out that the position of non-trivial zeros on the critical line is even more robust or less shaky than the position of trivial zeros on the real line. Somehow, the latter was easier to reach consensus in the global mathematics community.
It seems like this mathematical problem of Riemann's hypothesis is more about human psychology than technical problem. We respect Riemann as a brilliant mathematician. If there's a math problem that even he couldn't solve, it must be an extremely difficult problem, so we thought. Consequently, we tend to be overthinking in trying to find the solution.