Dear fellow researchers,
In your expert opinion, do you think the Riemann Hypothesis is true? The first billion zeros have been computed and they all verify this hypothesis. However, we have previously seen patterns hold until a very large number than break (There is a conjecture that holds for n
In my opinion, I think that the (RH) is true since all discovered non-trivial zeros are on the critical line. I think that current mathematics is not enough to prove the hypothesis. However, mathematicians are trying hard to give solid mathematical proof. Someone has to come up with an idea out of the box to solve such a problem.
Please see
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/skepticism-surrounds-renowned-mathematician-s-attempted-proof-160-year-old-hypothesis#:~:text=A%20famous%20mathematician%20today%20claimed,unsolved%20for%20nearly%20160%20years.&text=The%20Riemann%20hypothesis%2C%20one%20of,by%20German%20mathematician%20Bernhard%20Riemann.
Dear Roudy El Haddad
RH is a conjecture; I don't prefer to answer your question because a new conjecture can't answer conjecture!
Direct proof or a counterexample is requested.
Regards
Up to this point, the Riemann hypothesis is correct, because we did not find anyone who confirmed or denied this theory, so it remains correct in principle.
Dear Majid K.Neamah ,
If it is nether confirmed or denied, it stays unknown. For it to be concisered correct, it has to be proven. Conjectures are not correct until proven wrong. Did you mean that in your opinion it is correct?
If anyone proposes a theory and no one can make it wrong, at least it is not wrong, but it remains a mystery, and that is why it is called a mystery .. This does not mean that the theory is wrong.
I think we should explore both ways: false or true. I have made some advances in favor that is true. Check it in my paper (Robin Criterion on Divisibility):
https://www.cambridge.org/engage/coe/article-details/61134722abc9e20d306ae1d0
However, I have found some approaches against the conjecture (actually showing that could be false) in my paper (Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis):
https://www.cambridge.org/engage/coe/article-details/6111a82b424ea3cd66868d26
Whatever might be the answer, I think the true will prevail and some tiny progress like these ones could help in some way. I hope this information could be useful for you.
Dear Colleagues;
I would like to question the analytic continuation of Zeta Function especially when s is less than zero. Earlier, Euler has computed Zeta (-1) =-1/12 however, Euler had to Omit (Violate) the radius of convergence of a geometric series he used in his calculations. Similarly, Riemann's approach contains a violating (omitting) of a logical fact. In brief, Riemann assumed that [ Infinity * 0 = 0]…(1)in order to provide the analytic continuation of zeta function.
As for the location of the non-trivial zeros it is a consequence of (1) and then assuming that Zeta(s) = Zeta (1-s) = 0.
In a published article, we have clarified the impact of (1) in All Riemann results. Please feel free to detect/ correct any illogical output in the publication:
https://www.hrpub.org/journals/article_info.php?aid=10710
Best Regards
I have a proof for the Riemann hypothesis that is receiving a lot of positive feedback and is simple to understand.
Please head to my page to read it. Yes, the RH is true.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking