The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15   Go Down

What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?

  • 291 Replies
  • 99812 Views
  • 2 Tags

0 Members and 20 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #240 on: 18/10/2024 17:03:33 »
Riemann Hypothesis

Based on the comments on the video, this is one of the best summary and introduction to Riemann hypothesis. Its clarity and simplicity make it different from the others. Take a look.
« Last Edit: 01/11/2024 04:22:18 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 



Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #241 on: 27/10/2024 01:36:32 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 08/10/2024 15:04:58
Riemann Hypothesis 3 : Extracting regular pattern
There are plots of Y function and S function that show some jumps of their imaginary parts.

But we need to remember that imaginary part of a logarithmic function refers to the argument (or angular position in the complex plane) of its input. Thus 0 radian can also be satisfied by 2π, 4π, 6π, and so on. Generally, the solutions take the form of x + i y (1+2πn),
x ∈ real, y ∈ real, n ∈ integer

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+2+pi+%2B+im%28log%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B30i%29+-+zeta%280.5-d%2B30i%29%29%29+%2B+i+im%28log%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B30i%29+-+zeta%280.5-d%2B30i%29%29%29+from+-20+to+20

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+2+pi+%2B+im%28log%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B30i%29+%2F+zeta%280.5-d%2B30i%29%29%29+%2B+i+im%28log%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B30i%29+%2F+zeta%280.5-d%2B30i%29%29%29+from+-20+to+20

It's clear that the real jumps/discontinuities are only found in imaginary part of Y function on the critical line, while imaginary part of S function contains no jump at all. It still applies when non-trivial zeros of Zeta function are involved.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+2+pi+%2B+im%28log%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B14.1347i%29+-+zeta%280.5-d%2B14.1347i%29%29%29+%2B+i+im%28log%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B14.1347i%29+-+zeta%280.5-d%2B14.1347i%29%29%29+from+-20+to+20

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+2+pi+%2B+im%28log%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B14.1347i%29+%2F+zeta%280.5-d%2B14.1347i%29%29%29+%2B+i+im%28log%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B14.1347i%29+%2F+zeta%280.5-d%2B14.1347i%29%29%29+from+-20+to+20

* Screenshot 2024-10-27 082245.png (66.07 kB, 995x413 - viewed 333 times.)
« Last Edit: 27/10/2024 10:35:52 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #242 on: 27/10/2024 02:04:46 »
My next video on this topic will be titled impossible zeros. Some part of it explores the cases where ratio of two functions can be defined when both the numerator and denominator equal 0. For example, sinc(0) = sin(0)/0 = 1.
(1-cos(0)) / sin(0) = 0.
It will take some time to finish it and upload to my Youtube channel. Stay tuned.
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #243 on: 01/11/2024 03:24:40 »
The 4765th Loop of the Riemann Zeta Function Is Itty Bitty
Quote
Any nontrivial zeros that do not lie along the Critical Line of real part = 0.5 must do so in 2 pairs symmetric about both the Critical Line and the Real Line. Therefore, these zeros would necessarily have real part = 0.5 ? some value less than 0.5.

Imagine walking down the Critical Strip and picking up a perpendicular sliver of the strip, from real part = 0 across to 1, then moving it over onto the complex output plane, adjusting its shape and length so that every point mapped according to the Riemann Zeta Function.

For a pair of nontrivial zeros to exist here, this sliver of the Critical Strip would have to satisfy 3 requirements:
  ?  First, it would now have to be intersecting itself, meaning 2 input points mapping to the same output point.
  ?  Second, the overlap would have to be that of 2 points that were originally the same distance in the Critical Strip on either side of the point that had real part = 0.5, (e.g. 0.4 and 0.6).
  ?  Third and finally, this perfectly symmetric coincidence would have to land exactly on the zero of the complex output plane.

This video shows that instances of the first condition do indeed occur when the loops of the Critical Line are sufficiently small.

However, it seems to be the case that the second condition can never be met.

The loop that forms to allow for the self-intersection creates a pinch point that appears always to remain in the right half of the Critical Strip sliver, originally with real part > 0.5 up to 1. Furthermore, the right half of the sliver appears always to be shorter than the left half; so, even though intersection points can exist out into the left half (see between Zeta Zeros 34 and 35 for the first time this occurs), the points from the right half would always start out behind and never be able to catch up to their symmetric left half partner, thus always failing to meet the second condition.

If so, then the Riemann Hypothesis is true.

In fact, in his paper Geometrisches zur Riemannschen Zetafunktion written in 1934, Andreas Speiser showed that, given input from the left half of the Critical Strip, the derivative of the Riemann Zeta Function never producing a zero is equivalent to the Riemann Hypothesis.

~

The Riemann Zeta Function, as the sum of all positive integer reciprocals each raised to the complex input, ( A+i?B ), only converges for input with real part greater than 1.

     ζ( A+i?B ) = ( for N = 1 to ∞ ) ∑ { ( 1/N )^( A+i?B ) }, for A > 1

The Dirichlet Eta Function, also known as the Alternating Zeta Function, with every 2nd term subtracted rather than added, however, converges for all input with positive real part.

     η( A+i?B ) = ( for N = 1 to ∞ ) ∑ { ( 1/N )^( A+i?B ) ? ( ?1 )^( N?1 ) }, for A > 0

By taking advantage of the odd-term and even-term subsequences in these functions, it is possible to define the Riemann Zeta Function in terms of the Dirichlet Eta Function, thus extending its definition to the remaining positive real portion of its complex input plane, the Critical Strip.

     ζ( A+i?B ) = η( A+i?B ) / ( 1 ? 2?( 1/2 )^( A+i?B ) ), for A > 0

So, this animation depicts not only how discrete paths in the complex output plane taken by this infinite alternating sum??the Eta-defined Zeta Function??converge to specific output values, but also how these paths change and move as the input values (top-left) in the complex input plane move in the positive imaginary direction along the lines of real part A = 0.5+h, with the Critical Strip's minimum and maximum being h = -0.5 and 0.5.

     path( ζ( 0.5+h + i?B ) ) = ( for N = 1 to ∞ ) ∑ { ( X ? i?Y ) ? ( ?1 )^( N?1 ) }
          X = [ √(2) ? cos( B?ln(N/2) ) ? ( 2^h ) ? cos( B?ln(N) ) ] / [ N^( 0.5+h ) ? ( √(8) ? cos( B?ln(2) ) - 2^( 1-h ) - 2^h ) ]
          Y = [ √(2) ? sin( B?ln(N/2) ) ? ( 2^h ) ? sin( B?ln(N) ) ] / [ N^( 0.5+h ) ? ( √(8) ? cos( B?ln(2) ) - 2^( 1-h ) - 2^h ) ]

For the animation, the number of steps used for N was 512+floor(B/3) which was enough to reach the final twirl in the path that spirals in toward the actual output value for the Zeta Function.

The animation also depicts the trail for the line of real part = 0.5 from imaginary part = B fading to B-1, along with the full sliver of points with the same imaginary part = B.

Finally, about the path with real part = 0--it does not actually converge to a point given that its steps do not decrease in length. However, it does orbit around the point towards which the rest of its Critical Strip sliver approaches. That being said, being this far along the Critical Strip, it has grown quite large and extends much farther out than the path with real part = 1, thus lying well outside the scale relevant to this video.

For example, ζ(0.5 + i?5229.22) is about 0.00415568 + i?0.00252234 (the itty bitty loop) and ζ(1 + i?5229.22) is about 0.605669 + i?0.200235; meanwhile, ζ(0 + i?5229.22) reaches out to about 13.1889 + i?12.8344.


Quote
Since the 4765th loop is much too small in the video, here is a 12 second clip at 3 scales:
  ?  The value after the equals sign refers to when the real part is 0.5, and the dots are from 121 input values that were equally spaced across the Critical Strip (black refers to the "left half"; white the "right half"). Notice how the dots never cross their symmetric partner.


Quote
Quote
woah ... apparently it is an open question whether zeta has any double zeros.
Yep! In fact, that?s pretty much the Riemann Hypothesis. If there end up being any double zeros, then it?s false; but if there aren?t any, then it?s true.

So, I completely misunderstood this comment on first reading. I got stuck thinking of double as a reference to a hypothetical zero off of the critical line and its partner reflected across the critical line. However, a double zero of a function actually refers to an input value that evaluates to zero both for the function and for the derivative of the function. A triple zero would also evaluate to zero for the 2nd derivative, and, in general, a multiple zero of multiplicity M refers to an input value that evaluates to zero for the function and for its first M?1 derivatives. Also, zeros with multiplicity 1 are called simple zeros.

That being said, while none of the Riemann Zeta function zeros have been shown to be multiple, there is no proof that all of them are simple. So, yeh, it is indeed still an open question, but, contrary to my initial response, it is different from the open question about zeros off of the critical line that the Riemann Hypothesis addresses.
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #244 on: 01/11/2024 04:30:31 »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
Quote
In mathematics, the Riemann sphere, named after Bernhard Riemann, [1] is a model of the extended complex plane (also called the closed complex plane): the complex plane plus one point at infinity. This extended plane represents the extended complex numbers, that is, the complex numbers plus a value ∞ for infinity. With the Riemann model, the point ∞ is near to very large numbers, just as the point 0  is near to very small numbers.

The extended complex numbers are useful in complex analysis because they allow for division by zero in some circumstances, in a way that makes expressions such as 1/0 = ∞ well-behaved. For example, any rational function on the complex plane can be extended to a holomorphic function on the Riemann sphere, with the poles of the rational function mapping to infinity. More generally, any meromorphic function can be thought of as a holomorphic function whose codomain is the Riemann sphere.
Inspired by Riemann's sphere, the extended domain of Zeta function through analytic continuation using functional equation can be remapped to a similar sphere, which I call Zeta sphere.

The dotted black curve shows the location of trivial zeros. While dotted yellow curve shows the location of non-trivial zeros

* Screenshot 2024-11-01 204957.png (182.8 kB, 1219x646 - viewed 443 times.)
« Last Edit: 01/11/2024 13:52:38 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 



Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #245 on: 01/11/2024 06:52:36 »
The shocking connection between complex numbers and geometry.
Quote
A peek into the world of Riemann surfaces, and how complex analysis is algebra in disguise.
This video is a quick-and-dirty introduction to Riemann Surfaces. But as with any quick introduction, there are many details that I gloss over. To learn these details rigorously, I've listed a few resources down below.

(a) Complex Analysis 

To learn complex analysis, I really like the book "Visual Complex Functions: An Introduction with Phase Portraits" by Elias Wegert. It explains the whole subject using domain coloring front and center.

Another one of my favorite books is "A Friendly Approach To Complex Analysis" by Amol Sasane and Sara Maad Sasane. I think it motivates all the concepts really well and is very thoroughly explained. 

(b) Riemann Surfaces and Algebraic Curves

A beginner-friendly resource to learn this is "A Guide to Plane Algebraic Curves" by Keith Kendig. It starts off elementary with lots of pictures and visual intuition. Later on in the book, it talks about Riemann surfaces.

A more advanced graduate book is "Algebraic Curves and Riemann Surfaces" by Rick Miranda.


00:00-00:54 Intro
00:55-04:30 Complex Functions
4:31-5:53 Riemann Sphere
5:54-6:50 Sponsored Message
6:51-11:06 Complex Torus
11:07-11:50 Riemann Surfaces
12:11-13:53 Riemann's Existence Theorem
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #246 on: 01/11/2024 12:53:01 »
Barry Mazur "A Lecture on Primes and the Riemann Hypothesis" [2014]
Quote
How you would tell a high-school student or an interested lay person about the Riemann Hypothesis?

Dr. Barry Mazur, Gerhard Gade University Professor of Mathematics at Harvard University, gave a talk on Primes, based on his book-in-progress with William Stein on the Riemann Hypothesis.

Date: April 25, 2014 (11:00 AM PDT - 12:00 PM PDT)
At 25:25 He talks about square root accuracy. Later on in the Q&A at 49:03, the one half real part of the critical line is what accounts for square root accuracy.
 
« Last Edit: 01/11/2024 13:05:23 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #247 on: 01/11/2024 13:33:37 »
Sir Michael Atiyah | The Riemann Hypothesis | 2018
Quote
Sir Michael Francis Atiyah: "The Riemann Hypothesis"

Monday September 24, 2018 9:45

Abstract:
The Riemann Hypothesis is a famous unsolved problem dating from 1859. I will present a simple proof using a radically new approach. It is based on work of von Neumann (1936), Hirzebruch (1954) and Dirac (1928).
at 36:00 The video shows the alleged proof by contradiction of Riemann's Hypothesis using Todd function.
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #248 on: 01/11/2024 14:03:23 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/11/2024 04:30:31
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
Quote
In mathematics, the Riemann sphere, named after Bernhard Riemann, [1] is a model of the extended complex plane (also called the closed complex plane): the complex plane plus one point at infinity. This extended plane represents the extended complex numbers, that is, the complex numbers plus a value ∞ for infinity. With the Riemann model, the point ∞ is near to very large numbers, just as the point 0  is near to very small numbers.

The extended complex numbers are useful in complex analysis because they allow for division by zero in some circumstances, in a way that makes expressions such as 1/0 = ∞ well-behaved. For example, any rational function on the complex plane can be extended to a holomorphic function on the Riemann sphere, with the poles of the rational function mapping to infinity. More generally, any meromorphic function can be thought of as a holomorphic function whose codomain is the Riemann sphere.
Inspired by Riemann's sphere, the extended domain of Zeta function through analytic continuation using functional equation can be remapped to a similar sphere, which I call Zeta sphere.

The dotted black curve shows the location of trivial zeros. While dotted yellow curve shows the location of non-trivial zeros
You might wonder why I chose 1/2+2πi and 1/2-2πi instead of 1/2+i and 1/2-i for the intersecting points between green circle (the critical line) and orange circle (the unit radius). They are related to the inflection points of S function, which is the log of ratio between ζ(s) and ζ(1-s*) .
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 



Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #249 on: 03/11/2024 11:41:38 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 07/10/2024 23:41:59
This can be shown by combining Y function with S function which have been shifted to the left by a half.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be+d%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-e+d%2B9999i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B9999i%29%29%29+%29+from+-0.2+to+0.2
By the shape of the curve, let's just call it V function. The shape will be closely resemble the letter V when zoomed out.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be+d%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-e+d%2B9999i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B9999i%29%29%29+%29+from+-20+to+20

* Screenshot 2024-11-04 111158.png (50.51 kB, 828x644 - viewed 186 times.)
« Last Edit: 04/11/2024 04:12:38 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #250 on: 03/11/2024 11:49:43 »
The V function crosses the critical line at the power of e shown in the numerator.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E0.2+d%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E0.2+d%2B9999i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B9999i%29%29%29+%29+from+-1+to+1

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E2+d%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E2+d%2B9999i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B9999i%29%29%29+%29+from+-1+to+1

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E-0.3+d%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E-0.3+d%2B9999i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B9999i%29%29%29+%29+from+-1+to+1

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E0+d%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E0+d%2B9999i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B9999i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B9999i%29%29%29+%29+from+-1+to+1



The behavior of V function should be convincing enough to conclude that zeta function can't be 0 when d is not 0. In other words, there is no anomalous zero of Zeta function, implying that Riemann's hypothesis is true.

* Screenshot 2024-11-05 172352.png (23.17 kB, 761x478 - viewed 365 times.)

* Screenshot 2024-11-05 172543.png (23.79 kB, 749x487 - viewed 150 times.)

* Screenshot 2024-11-05 172720.png (22.66 kB, 759x438 - viewed 128 times.)

* Screenshot 2024-11-05 172750.png (16.93 kB, 755x432 - viewed 150 times.)
« Last Edit: 05/11/2024 10:28:02 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #251 on: 03/11/2024 21:34:18 »
At high imaginary part, the real part of S function is very close to a straight line with a negative slope.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re+%28log%28zeta%280.5%2B+d%2B9999i%29%2Fzeta+%280.5-+d%2B9999i%29%29%29++%2Bi+%28-d+log%289999%2F2%2Fpi%29+%29from+-1+to+1
This is where they are overlaid on the same plot.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re+%28log%28zeta%280.5%2B+d%2B9999i%29%2Fzeta+%280.5-+d%2B9999i%29%29%29++-%28-d+log%289999%2F2%2Fpi%29+%29from+-1+to+1
And this is where the difference between them is plotted.

* Screenshot 2024-11-05 173102.png (25.03 kB, 762x439 - viewed 142 times.)

* Screenshot 2024-11-05 173225.png (24.92 kB, 759x448 - viewed 140 times.)
« Last Edit: 05/11/2024 10:32:34 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #252 on: 03/11/2024 21:37:16 »
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re+%28log%28zeta%280.5%2B+d%2B9i%29%2Fzeta+%280.5-+d%2B9i%29%29%29++-%28-d+log%289%2F2%2Fpi%29+%29from+-1+to+1
This is where the imaginary part is lower.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re+%28log%28zeta%280.5%2B+d%2B4i%29%2Fzeta+%280.5-+d%2B4i%29%29%29++-%28-d+log%284%2F2%2Fpi%29+%29from+-1+to+1
It still applies when the imaginary part is lower than 2 pi.

The shape of the curve doesn't seem to change even when a non-trivial zero is involved.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re+%28log%28zeta%280.5%2B+d%2B14.134725142i%29%2Fzeta+%280.5-+d%2B14.134725142i%29%29%29++-%28-d+log%2814.134725142%2F%282+pi%29%29+%29from+-1+to+1


* Screenshot 2024-11-05 173318.png (20.97 kB, 748x436 - viewed 137 times.)

* Screenshot 2024-11-05 173336.png (21.71 kB, 760x444 - viewed 155 times.)

* Screenshot 2024-11-05 174012.png (25.35 kB, 756x462 - viewed 148 times.)
« Last Edit: 05/11/2024 10:40:28 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 



Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #253 on: 05/11/2024 10:49:36 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 03/11/2024 11:49:43
The behavior of V function should be convincing enough to conclude that zeta function can't be 0 when d is not 0. In other words, there is no anomalous zero of Zeta function, implying that Riemann's hypothesis is true.
Some of you might haven't seen the connection yet. Let me try again by comparing these plots.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E0.2+d%2B14.134725142+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E0.2+d%2B14.134725142+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B14.134725142+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B14.134725142+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-10+to+10

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E0.2+d%2B18+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E0.2+d%2B18+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B18+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B18+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-10+to+10

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E-0.2+d%2B18+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E-0.2+d%2B18+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B18+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B18+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-10+to+10

The first plot contains non-trivial zero of Zeta function, while the second one doesn't. Yet, they have the same basic shape.
ζ(s) = 0
let's break down s to simplify the analysis.
let s = 0.5+d+c i     
1-s* = 0.5-d+c i
V(s) = log( { ζ(0.5+d eb+c i)-ζ(0.5-d eb+c i) } /  { ζ(0.5+d+c i)-ζ(0.5-d+c i) } )

For the sake of the argument, let's assume that there exist anomalous Zeta zeros, where s is not on the critical line and not on the real line either. Here are the implications:
ζ(0.5+d+c i ) = 0
ζ(0.5-d+c i ) = 0
ζ(0.5+d+c i)-ζ(0.5-d+c i) = 0
when d ≠ 0

This will make the V function to blow up because its denominator becomes 0, except when the numerator is also 0.
ζ(0.5+d eb+c i)-ζ(0.5-d eb+c i) = 0
ζ(0.5+d eb+c i) = ζ(0.5-d eb+c i)  for all finite b

* Screenshot 2024-11-05 174903.png (28.5 kB, 756x485 - viewed 148 times.)

* Screenshot 2024-11-05 174923.png (23.64 kB, 749x443 - viewed 150 times.)
« Last Edit: 05/11/2024 14:03:14 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #254 on: 05/11/2024 16:45:56 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/11/2024 10:49:36
For the sake of the argument, let's assume that there exist anomalous Zeta zeros, where s is not on the critical line and not on the real line either. Here are the implications:
ζ(0.5+d+c i ) = 0
ζ(0.5-d+c i ) = 0
ζ(0.5+d+c i)-ζ(0.5-d+c i) = 0
when d ≠ 0

This will make the V function to blow up because its denominator becomes 0, except when the numerator is also 0.
ζ(0.5+d eb+c i)-ζ(0.5-d eb+c i) = 0
ζ(0.5+d eb+c i) = ζ(0.5-d eb+c i)  for all finite b
Since it has been proven numerically that low values of c don't produce anomalous zero, it only left high values of c that need further investigation. Assumption for the existence of anomalous zero implies that somehow a combination of low d (0<d<1) and high c (c>>2π) can make  analytic continuation of Zeta function to produce zero.

Assuming that V function maintains its shape for high enough c, the last equation above contradicts the regular behavior of Y and S functions, which represents the difference and ratio between zeta function of a complex value and it's reflection about the critical line, especially with large value of c.
The last equation above requires the Y function to be a constant horizontal line at -∞, and S function to be a constant line at 0.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2024 06:23:21 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #255 on: 06/11/2024 05:32:53 »
The plots below show that b determines the intersection between V function and the critical line, regardless the value of c. The last plot shows that the statement is still true even when a non-trivial zero is involved.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E1+d%2B0.01+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E1+d%2B0.01+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B0.01+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B0.01+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-1+to+1

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E2+d%2B0.0+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E2+d%2B0.0+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B0.0+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B0.0+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-1+to+1

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E2+d%2B0.01+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E2+d%2B0.01+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B0.01+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B0.01+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-1+to+1

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E2+d%2B0.1+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E2+d%2B0.1+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B0.1+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B0.1+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-1+to+1

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E2+d%2B1+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E2+d%2B1+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B1+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B1+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-1+to+1

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E2+d%2B10+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E2+d%2B10+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B10+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B10+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-1+to+1

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E2+d%2B101.317851+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E2+d%2B101.317851+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B101.317851+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B101.317851+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-1+to+1

« Last Edit: 06/11/2024 06:13:03 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #256 on: 06/11/2024 06:08:13 »
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Number_of_Primes_Less_Than_a_Given_Magnitude
"Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Gr?sse" (usual English translation: "On the Number of Primes Less Than a Given Magnitude") is a seminal 9-page paper by Bernhard Riemann published in the November 1859 edition of the Monatsberichte der K?niglich Preu?ischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.

Overview
This paper studies the prime-counting function using analytic methods. Although it is the only paper Riemann ever published on number theory, it contains ideas which influenced thousands of researchers during the late 19th century and up to the present day. The paper consists primarily of definitions, heuristic arguments, sketches of proofs, and the application of powerful analytic methods; all of these have become essential concepts and tools of modern analytic number theory.

Among the conjectures made:

The Riemann hypothesis, that all (nontrivial) zeros of ζ(s) have real part 1/2. Riemann states this in terms of the roots of the related ξ function,
... es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass alle Wurzeln reell sind. Hiervon w?re allerdings ein strenger Beweis zu w?nschen; ich habe indess die Aufsuchung desselben nach einigen fl?chtigen vergeblichen Versuchen vorl?ufig bei Seite gelassen, da er f?r den n?chsten Zweck meiner Untersuchung entbehrlich schien.

That is,
it is very probable that all roots are real. One would, however, wish for a strict proof of this; I have, though, after some fleeting futile attempts, provisionally put aside the search for such, as it appears unnecessary for the next objective of my investigation.

(He was discussing a version of the zeta function, modified so that its roots are real rather than on the critical line.)
The last statement above explains why Riemann's hypothesis uses the wordings "that all roots are real" instead of mentioning about the critical line or real part of the complex number. As he said himself, proving his hypothesis was just a side task which he can ignore while pursuing his main objective, which was about prime counting function.
In contrast, the objective of my investigation here is exactly about trying to falsify or eliminate the possibility of anomalous zero of Zeta function, while ignoring any correlation with prime numbers. It's a path less traveled, but perhaps it's what it takes to tackle a long standing unsolved mystery.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2024 06:15:41 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 



Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #257 on: 07/11/2024 13:32:18 »
These plots show the evolution of V function as the value of b increases while keeping the other parameters. The shape of the curves don't seem to change much.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E0.01+d%2B99+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E0.01+d%2B99+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B99+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B99+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-e%5E-0.01+to+e%5E-0.01

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E2+d%2B99+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E2+d%2B99+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B99+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B99+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-e%5E-2+to+e%5E-2

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E4+d%2B99+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E4+d%2B99+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B99+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B99+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-e%5E-4+to+e%5E-4

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re%28log%28%28zeta%280.5%2Be%5E10+d%2B99+i%29-zeta+%280.5-e%5E10+d%2B99+i%29%29+%2F+%28zeta%280.5%2Bd%2B99+i%29-zeta+%280.5-d%2B99+i%29%29%29+%29+from+-e%5E-10+to+e%5E-10
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #258 on: 08/11/2024 03:34:51 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 06/11/2024 05:32:53
The plots below show that b determines the intersection between V function and the critical line, regardless the value of c. The last plot shows that the statement is still true even when a non-trivial zero is involved.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/11/2024 10:49:36
V(s) = log( { ζ(0.5+d eb+c i)-ζ(0.5-d eb+c i) } /  { ζ(0.5+d+c i)-ζ(0.5-d+c i) } )
For the sake of the argument, let's assume that there exist anomalous Zeta zeros, where s is not on the critical line and not on the real line either. Here are the implications:
ζ(0.5+d+c i ) = 0
ζ(0.5-d+c i ) = 0
ζ(0.5+d+c i)-ζ(0.5-d+c i) = 0
when d ≠ 0

This will make the V function to blow up because its denominator becomes 0, except when the numerator is also 0.
ζ(0.5+d eb+c i)-ζ(0.5-d eb+c i) = 0
ζ(0.5+d eb+c i) = ζ(0.5-d eb+c i)  for all finite b

Individually, on their own, each of Y, S, and V functions are not convincing enough against anomalous zeros of Zeta function. But when they are combined, the conclusion is overwhelmingly strong in supporting Riemann's Hypothesis.

Y function can reliably detect anomalous zero by getting additional "legs" of negative infinity. It's certainly an anomalous curve of Y function, but we can't say that it's impossible only from this observation.

S function reliably gets closer to a straight line with negative slope as the imaginary part of the input is increased. We should be able to prove this fact by processing the nested infinite sums as the definition of S function. But it's not sensitive to zeros of Zeta function, including the ordinary non-trivial zeros lying on the critical line.

V function itself lacks the advantage of Y function while also has the weakness of S function. But when its implications from anomalous zero are combined with that from Y and S function, the argument against the existence of anomalous zero is irrefutable.

« Last Edit: 14/11/2024 15:32:29 by hamdani yusuf »
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11800
  • Activity:
    90.5%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?
« Reply #259 on: 09/11/2024 11:49:16 »
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/05/2024 07:44:04
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 19/05/2024 22:09:19
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+%28log%28%28zeta%280%2B+s+i%29%29+%2F+%28Zeta%281%2B+s+i%29%29%29%29+from+0+to+30

This  is a variation of backslash (aka S) function, but plotted against the imaginary part, instead of the real part of s.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re+%28log%28%28zeta%280.499%2B+s+i%29%29+%2F+%28Zeta%281-0.499+%2B+s+i%29%29%29%29+from+-90+to+90

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re+%28log%28%28zeta%280.499%2B+s+i%29%29+%2F+%28Zeta%281-0.499+%2B+s+i%29%29%29%29+from+-9+to+9

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot+re+%28log%28%28zeta%280.49999%2B+s+i%29%29+%2F+%28Zeta%281-0.49999+%2B+s+i%29%29%29%29+from+-9+to+9

Plotted symmetrically, it looks like the letter V. So, I'll just call it V function.
I think I need to clarify that V function in my previous posts referred to the plot along the imaginary axis. While the latest V function was plotted along the real axis. I hope this clarification can avoid potential confusions to the readers.
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: riemann hypothesis  / zeta function 
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.349 seconds with 64 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.