Re: Riemann Hypothesis
- From: Aron Palmer <aron.palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:59:40 EST
I haven't studied your proof.
However, it certainly does not fall into the usual
category
of absurd RH "proofs".
Thanks, it is a serious attempt, and I have not put myself out here just to make a fool of myself.
Nevertheless, it seems to me it would be greatly
improved
if you split the argument into a number of clearly
stated Lemmas.
Yeah I know, going to be quite a bit of work to restructure though.
Off the top of my head, I would have thought there
were
Dirichlet series similar to the Riemann zeta function
which do not have all their zeros in the critical
strip
on the line Rl(s) = 1/2;
and as you say, you do not seem to have used
any specific properties of the Riemann zeta function.
Thats not quite correct, I do use the fact that the function whose two sided laplace transform is xi-function(s+1/2) is even positive decreasing, I guess this will not be true for the Dirichlet series which have zeros off the critical line. What I really meant is that there is not much insight above what is already known about the Zeta function in the proof.
.
- References:
- Re: Riemann Hypothesis
- From: Timothy Murphy
- Re: Riemann Hypothesis
- Prev by Date: Re: Finite groups generetad by two elements
- Next by Date: Re: derivatives and determinant
- Previous by thread: Re: Riemann Hypothesis
- Next by thread: Re: Riemann Hypothesis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|