Re: Q on Riemann Hypothesis


<dummyacct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Why is the following not a correct proof of the Riemann Hypothesis?

Definitions:
z(s)=Riemann zeta function=sum_n=1_to_inf{(-1)^(n+1)*(1/n^s)}, valid
for Re(s)>0

Not quite, although that function has the same zeros. See formula (1) on
this page:
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/FormulaeForZetaInTheCriticalStrip.html
It requires a little justification, because the series is not absolutely
convergent. Things like differentiation under the integral therefore blow
up.

Kibitzers: We're talkin' Re(s) > 0, not Re(s) > 1.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: padding with spaces
    ... Jerry Stuckle wrote: ... zeros as in this code: ... It is not padding all the spaces but only one space. ... Even with left justification: ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: padding with spaces
    ... IchBin wrote: ... zeros as in this code: ... It is not padding all the spaces but only one space. ... Even with left justification: ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: padding with spaces
    ... | zeros as in this code: ... It is not padding all the spaces but ... Right justification: ... Remove your pants to reply ...
    (comp.lang.php)