/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9398220]

If we know that the Riemann zeta function is essentially the Mellin transform of the Dirac comb on the natural numbers (Terrence Tao), then what is left to be proven about it? It seems like the function is pretty well understood, and I have some ideas for how it relates to primes that I'd like to try, but I don't exactly know what there is that hasn't been done.

[Anonymous No.9398263]

[Anonymous No.9398272]

Got the fuckin loosest understanding of the zeta function possible, but as I see it, the problem isn't really understanding how the function works, but rather proving strong "conjecture" about it. I mean, I pretty much understand how the shrödinger equation work, it doesn't mean I can easily prove every result I was taught about it.

[Anonymous No.9398301]

>>9398263
I hate this meme of acting as if the limits of diverging sums work like that in real life

[Anonymous No.9398380]

>>9398301
I mean the trolley is going to stop pretty quickly with all those bodies slowing it down.

[Anonymous No.9398381]

>>9398380
True dat
A good question would be: with the increasing number of of corpse would it be worth it to make it run on the bottom trail, given that it will stop faster ?

[Anonymous No.9400064]

>>9398220
bumpin

[Anonymous No.9400458]

>>9398220

Link to this? I can't seem to find a source anywhere

[Anonymous No.9400506]

>>9398220
>what is left to be proven about it?
What does knowing that ' the Riemann zeta function is essentially the Mellin transform of the Dirac comb on the natural numbers' prove about it?

Knowing how something is constructed and knowing how something behaves are two different things.

[Anonymous No.9401161]

>>9400458
He said it in some Yahoo group from 13 years ago

[Anonymous No.9401236]

>>9398263
Shouldn't you kill -1/2 people if you chose the path at the top?