Why doesn´t this proof the Riemann Hypothesis?

Why doesn´t this proof the Riemann Hypothesis?

Postby Guest » Sun May 17, 2020 1:18 pm

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+[tex]\frac{1}{2}[/tex] 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+[tex]\frac{1}{2}[/tex] \ne c*i+[tex]\frac{1}{r}[/tex] 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+[tex]\frac{1}{2}[/tex] \ne c*i+[tex]\frac{1}{r}[/tex] |-(c*i)
[tex]\frac{1}{2}[/tex] \ne [tex]\frac{1}{r}[/tex]
And this must be true, because as defined earlier r \ne 2
Guest
 

Return to Functions, Graphs, Derivatives



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest