/sci/ - Science & Math

The Riemann hypothesis's only evidence so far seems to be the lack of any counterexample. I don't see why every non-trivial zero of the Riemann function z would have [math]\Re(z)=\frac{1}{2}.[/math]

Another statement of the hypothesis in terms of real analysis only seems to confirm my suspicions. The de Bruijn-Newman constant is a real number [math] \Lambda[/math] such that for every number [math] \lambda\ge\Lambda,[/math]
[eqn]H_ \lambda(z)= \int_0^{+ \infty} e^{ \lambda t^2} \Phi(t) \cos (zt) dt[/eqn]

Here, [math] \Phi(t)[/math] is a series too long for me to write out. If people get mad at me for omitting it, I'll post it, but you can always look it up. The Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to saying [math] \Lambda \le 0.[/math]

Tao and Rodgers proved some time ago that [math] \Lambda [/math] is equal to 0. The means if the constant is not equal to 0, the Riemann hypothesis is false. If it's true, it's true by a single strand of hair.

Again, I don't see any evidence to believe it's 0 other than it's a nice, round number.

Despite all this, almost every mathematician I've seen mention the hypothesis has operated under the assumption that it's true. Is this out of convenience, hope, or am I missing something vital?

I've been pondering about primes for years. I noticed something and was wondering if anyone had some insight or research papers which have already covered this.
Today I'd like to talk about prime factorization.
It should be apparent to anyone who has studied prime factorization that any number over 10 (or 7, coincidentally - Is this because 5+2=7?), cannot be prime if the final digits of this number in base 10 are 2,4,6,8,0, or 5. You can consider 0 as a 10, and you might notice something. All of these numbers are multiples of the prime factors of 10.
The prime factors of 10 are 2 and 5. The final digits which cannot be in a prime number, no matter how large it is, are all multiples of 2 (2,4,6,8,10) or multiples of 5 (5,10).
This, to me, has a sort of symmetry with the Goldbach theorems.
I am wondering if a number base which is the product of two primes will always have this property. It seems like it inherently would be so, but I'd like some help in understanding why.
For example, given a number in base 21 (3*7) or base 14 (2*7), is it always the case that all numbers ending in multiples of those prime factors will never themselves be prime numbers?

Which millennium prize problem is the least likely to be solved within the next decade?

Why has nobody solved it yet? How much work needs to be put into it?

Say someone actually proved the Reimann hypothesis , what benefit will it bring to the real world ?

Same question for navier-stoke ?

>Newton
>Christian
Delete this right fucking now.

yes or no?

has some meaning under something something riemann *psued babble*

just less talked about

/sci/ I have finally solved the Riemann hypothesis (it's true)

paper is going up on arxiv soon, it's just getting checked by my advisor as I type this post. I had to invent a new proof method to solve it but I won't tell you what it is because people have been mean to me on the internet lately. If this is a nice thread, I'll explain further.

baby's first mathematician is Euler

adult hood is realizing Gauss was better

enlightenment is realizing Riemann was even better

>>8426142
>cosmology
>differential geometry

It must be nice to study untestable/unobservable "science"

>>8257018
>>8257021

I'm majoring in Mathematics. I'm taking

Calculus 1
English 1
Spanish 1
German 1
French 1
Russian 1
U.S. History 1

I'm bored and I don't know what to do besides read the bible which I have been doing but perhaps there is another thing I may do.

Is this legit?
Did someone actually solve the Riemann Hypothesis?

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/nigerian-solves-156-years-old-knotty-hypothesis-in-maths/225694/

this thread's not gonna die
not on my watch