# Why doesn´t this proof the Riemann Hypothesis?

### Why doesn´t this proof the Riemann Hypothesis?

Im just curious... Why doesn´t this proof the Riemann Hypothesis? Where is it´s logical mistake:

When we assume - like Riemann did - that all the zeros are of the form c*i+$$\frac{1}{2}$$ we can say that this and only this has the property to give out zero when plugged into the Zeta Function.
We then can say that it must be true that c*i+$$\frac{1}{2}$$ \ne c*i+$$\frac{1}{r}$$ for every c \in R and for every c also every r \in R with r greater than 0, but smaller than 1 and r \ne 2.
This can easily be proofed by subtracting c*i from both sides like so:
c*i+$$\frac{1}{2}$$ \ne c*i+$$\frac{1}{r}$$ |-(c*i)
$$\frac{1}{2}$$ \ne $$\frac{1}{r}$$
And this must be true, because as defined earlier r \ne 2
Guest