Symmetry of zeros in the critical strip for Riemann Hypothesis












0












$begingroup$


If it can be proven that there are no zeros for real values greater than $0.5$ in the critical strip, does this prove that there are no zeros in the critical strip having a real value of less than $0.5$?






riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    If it can be proven that there are no zeros for real values greater than $0.5$ in the critical strip, does this prove that there are no zeros in the critical strip having a real value of less than $0.5$?






    riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      If it can be proven that there are no zeros for real values greater than $0.5$ in the critical strip, does this prove that there are no zeros in the critical strip having a real value of less than $0.5$?






      riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      If it can be proven that there are no zeros for real values greater than $0.5$ in the critical strip, does this prove that there are no zeros in the critical strip having a real value of less than $0.5$?






      riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis




      riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 17 at 12:00









      idriskameni

      583319




      583319










      asked Jan 17 at 11:41









      Archie CallArchie Call

      1




      1






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          Yes, it would prove that.



          The Riemann $zeta$ function is known to satisfy the following functional equation:
          $$
          zeta(s) = 2^spi^{s-1}sinleft(frac{pi s}2right)Gamma(1-s)zeta(1-s)
          $$
          Assuming $z_0$ is a root in the critical strip which is not on the critical line, then $1-z_0$ is also a root on the critical strip which is on the opposite side of the critical line. So if $z_0$ has real part less than $0.5$, then $1-z_0$ has real part greater than $0.5$, and vice versa. Of course this also means that the absence of roots to the right of the critical strip imples the absence of roots on the left side.



          This phenomenon of roots off the critical line appearing in pairs is actually why the Riemann hypothesis is so important. One manifestation is the following: If $pi:Bbb R^+to Bbb N$ is the prime counting function (i.e. $pi(x)$ is the number of primes less than or equal to $x$), then we have
          $$
          pi(x) = int_2^xfrac{dx}{ln x} + text{correction terms}
          $$
          The corrections include an infinite sum with one term for each non-trivial root of the Riemann $zeta$ function. If there are roots not on the critical line, then this symmetry means there are actually two roots of that magnitude, meaining we have more, larger correction terms.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            $sum_{p^k le x} log p = x- sum_rho frac{x^rho}{rho}+C+O(x^{-1})$. If $Re(rho) > 1/2$ then $x^{1-rho}$ is much smaller than $x^rho$ so we don't really care of it. That's part of the problem : the RH fails for most Euler products without functional equation, and the functional equation has only very hardly sensible consequences on the distribution of the primes. Together with the explicit formula, most of the information we have is the density of zeros, and that "exponentiating the primes" gives the integers, whose distribution is well-understood.
            $endgroup$
            – reuns
            Jan 17 at 16:29













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3076878%2fsymmetry-of-zeros-in-the-critical-strip-for-riemann-hypothesis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          Yes, it would prove that.



          The Riemann $zeta$ function is known to satisfy the following functional equation:
          $$
          zeta(s) = 2^spi^{s-1}sinleft(frac{pi s}2right)Gamma(1-s)zeta(1-s)
          $$
          Assuming $z_0$ is a root in the critical strip which is not on the critical line, then $1-z_0$ is also a root on the critical strip which is on the opposite side of the critical line. So if $z_0$ has real part less than $0.5$, then $1-z_0$ has real part greater than $0.5$, and vice versa. Of course this also means that the absence of roots to the right of the critical strip imples the absence of roots on the left side.



          This phenomenon of roots off the critical line appearing in pairs is actually why the Riemann hypothesis is so important. One manifestation is the following: If $pi:Bbb R^+to Bbb N$ is the prime counting function (i.e. $pi(x)$ is the number of primes less than or equal to $x$), then we have
          $$
          pi(x) = int_2^xfrac{dx}{ln x} + text{correction terms}
          $$
          The corrections include an infinite sum with one term for each non-trivial root of the Riemann $zeta$ function. If there are roots not on the critical line, then this symmetry means there are actually two roots of that magnitude, meaining we have more, larger correction terms.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            $sum_{p^k le x} log p = x- sum_rho frac{x^rho}{rho}+C+O(x^{-1})$. If $Re(rho) > 1/2$ then $x^{1-rho}$ is much smaller than $x^rho$ so we don't really care of it. That's part of the problem : the RH fails for most Euler products without functional equation, and the functional equation has only very hardly sensible consequences on the distribution of the primes. Together with the explicit formula, most of the information we have is the density of zeros, and that "exponentiating the primes" gives the integers, whose distribution is well-understood.
            $endgroup$
            – reuns
            Jan 17 at 16:29


















          1












          $begingroup$

          Yes, it would prove that.



          The Riemann $zeta$ function is known to satisfy the following functional equation:
          $$
          zeta(s) = 2^spi^{s-1}sinleft(frac{pi s}2right)Gamma(1-s)zeta(1-s)
          $$
          Assuming $z_0$ is a root in the critical strip which is not on the critical line, then $1-z_0$ is also a root on the critical strip which is on the opposite side of the critical line. So if $z_0$ has real part less than $0.5$, then $1-z_0$ has real part greater than $0.5$, and vice versa. Of course this also means that the absence of roots to the right of the critical strip imples the absence of roots on the left side.



          This phenomenon of roots off the critical line appearing in pairs is actually why the Riemann hypothesis is so important. One manifestation is the following: If $pi:Bbb R^+to Bbb N$ is the prime counting function (i.e. $pi(x)$ is the number of primes less than or equal to $x$), then we have
          $$
          pi(x) = int_2^xfrac{dx}{ln x} + text{correction terms}
          $$
          The corrections include an infinite sum with one term for each non-trivial root of the Riemann $zeta$ function. If there are roots not on the critical line, then this symmetry means there are actually two roots of that magnitude, meaining we have more, larger correction terms.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            $sum_{p^k le x} log p = x- sum_rho frac{x^rho}{rho}+C+O(x^{-1})$. If $Re(rho) > 1/2$ then $x^{1-rho}$ is much smaller than $x^rho$ so we don't really care of it. That's part of the problem : the RH fails for most Euler products without functional equation, and the functional equation has only very hardly sensible consequences on the distribution of the primes. Together with the explicit formula, most of the information we have is the density of zeros, and that "exponentiating the primes" gives the integers, whose distribution is well-understood.
            $endgroup$
            – reuns
            Jan 17 at 16:29
















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          Yes, it would prove that.



          The Riemann $zeta$ function is known to satisfy the following functional equation:
          $$
          zeta(s) = 2^spi^{s-1}sinleft(frac{pi s}2right)Gamma(1-s)zeta(1-s)
          $$
          Assuming $z_0$ is a root in the critical strip which is not on the critical line, then $1-z_0$ is also a root on the critical strip which is on the opposite side of the critical line. So if $z_0$ has real part less than $0.5$, then $1-z_0$ has real part greater than $0.5$, and vice versa. Of course this also means that the absence of roots to the right of the critical strip imples the absence of roots on the left side.



          This phenomenon of roots off the critical line appearing in pairs is actually why the Riemann hypothesis is so important. One manifestation is the following: If $pi:Bbb R^+to Bbb N$ is the prime counting function (i.e. $pi(x)$ is the number of primes less than or equal to $x$), then we have
          $$
          pi(x) = int_2^xfrac{dx}{ln x} + text{correction terms}
          $$
          The corrections include an infinite sum with one term for each non-trivial root of the Riemann $zeta$ function. If there are roots not on the critical line, then this symmetry means there are actually two roots of that magnitude, meaining we have more, larger correction terms.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Yes, it would prove that.



          The Riemann $zeta$ function is known to satisfy the following functional equation:
          $$
          zeta(s) = 2^spi^{s-1}sinleft(frac{pi s}2right)Gamma(1-s)zeta(1-s)
          $$
          Assuming $z_0$ is a root in the critical strip which is not on the critical line, then $1-z_0$ is also a root on the critical strip which is on the opposite side of the critical line. So if $z_0$ has real part less than $0.5$, then $1-z_0$ has real part greater than $0.5$, and vice versa. Of course this also means that the absence of roots to the right of the critical strip imples the absence of roots on the left side.



          This phenomenon of roots off the critical line appearing in pairs is actually why the Riemann hypothesis is so important. One manifestation is the following: If $pi:Bbb R^+to Bbb N$ is the prime counting function (i.e. $pi(x)$ is the number of primes less than or equal to $x$), then we have
          $$
          pi(x) = int_2^xfrac{dx}{ln x} + text{correction terms}
          $$
          The corrections include an infinite sum with one term for each non-trivial root of the Riemann $zeta$ function. If there are roots not on the critical line, then this symmetry means there are actually two roots of that magnitude, meaining we have more, larger correction terms.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jan 17 at 12:11

























          answered Jan 17 at 11:54









          ArthurArthur

          115k7116198




          115k7116198












          • $begingroup$
            $sum_{p^k le x} log p = x- sum_rho frac{x^rho}{rho}+C+O(x^{-1})$. If $Re(rho) > 1/2$ then $x^{1-rho}$ is much smaller than $x^rho$ so we don't really care of it. That's part of the problem : the RH fails for most Euler products without functional equation, and the functional equation has only very hardly sensible consequences on the distribution of the primes. Together with the explicit formula, most of the information we have is the density of zeros, and that "exponentiating the primes" gives the integers, whose distribution is well-understood.
            $endgroup$
            – reuns
            Jan 17 at 16:29




















          • $begingroup$
            $sum_{p^k le x} log p = x- sum_rho frac{x^rho}{rho}+C+O(x^{-1})$. If $Re(rho) > 1/2$ then $x^{1-rho}$ is much smaller than $x^rho$ so we don't really care of it. That's part of the problem : the RH fails for most Euler products without functional equation, and the functional equation has only very hardly sensible consequences on the distribution of the primes. Together with the explicit formula, most of the information we have is the density of zeros, and that "exponentiating the primes" gives the integers, whose distribution is well-understood.
            $endgroup$
            – reuns
            Jan 17 at 16:29


















          $begingroup$
          $sum_{p^k le x} log p = x- sum_rho frac{x^rho}{rho}+C+O(x^{-1})$. If $Re(rho) > 1/2$ then $x^{1-rho}$ is much smaller than $x^rho$ so we don't really care of it. That's part of the problem : the RH fails for most Euler products without functional equation, and the functional equation has only very hardly sensible consequences on the distribution of the primes. Together with the explicit formula, most of the information we have is the density of zeros, and that "exponentiating the primes" gives the integers, whose distribution is well-understood.
          $endgroup$
          – reuns
          Jan 17 at 16:29






          $begingroup$
          $sum_{p^k le x} log p = x- sum_rho frac{x^rho}{rho}+C+O(x^{-1})$. If $Re(rho) > 1/2$ then $x^{1-rho}$ is much smaller than $x^rho$ so we don't really care of it. That's part of the problem : the RH fails for most Euler products without functional equation, and the functional equation has only very hardly sensible consequences on the distribution of the primes. Together with the explicit formula, most of the information we have is the density of zeros, and that "exponentiating the primes" gives the integers, whose distribution is well-understood.
          $endgroup$
          – reuns
          Jan 17 at 16:29




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3076878%2fsymmetry-of-zeros-in-the-critical-strip-for-riemann-hypothesis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Mario Kart Wii

          Image
          Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro...
          Read more

          The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth

          Image
          Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth From The Cutting Room Floor < The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth Jump to: navigation, search This is a sub-page of The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth . Afterbirth is the first expansion pack for Rebirth and features a variety of improvements. Contents 1 Unused Graphics 1.1 Old Man Keeper 1.2 Skinless Hush 1.3 Miscellaneous Unused Hush Sprites 1.4 Generosity achievement 1.5 Afterbirth+ Room Editor 1.6 Bearded Ultra Greed 1.7 Early Ultra Greed 1.8 Unused Brownie Expression 1.9 Frail's Spinning Head 1.10 Mom's Dead Hand Alt 2 Unused Audio 2.1 Unused Dead Womb Layer 2.2 Unused Hush Battle Outro 2.3 The Stain Grunt Unused Graphics Old Man Keeper Image file: gfxuimain me...
          Read more

          What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

          Image
          5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1 ...
          Read more