2019viXraRequires access

Proof of Riemann Hypothesis

Gang tae geuk

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Riemann hypothesis means that satisfying ζ(s)=0(ζ(s) means Riemann Zeta function) unselfevidenceable root's part of true numbers are Dennis Hejhal, and John Dubisher explained this hypothesis to : Choosed Any natural numbers(exclude 1 and constructed with two or higher powered prime numbers) then the probability of numbers that choosed number's forming prime factor become an even number is 1/2. I'll prove this explain to prove Riemann hypothesis indirectly. In binomial coefficient, C(n,0)+C(n+1)+...+C(n,n)=2^n. And C(n,1)+C(n,3)+C(n,5)+...+C(n,n) and C(n,0)+C(n,2)+C(n,4)+...+C(n,n) is 2^(n-1). If you pick up 8 prime numbers, then you can make numbers that exclude 1 and constructed with two or higher powered prime numbers, and the total amount of numbers that you made is 2^8. Same principle, if you pick the numbers in k times(k is a variable), the total amount of numbers you made is C(8,k). If k is an even number, the total amount of numbers you can make is C(8,0)+C(8,2)+...+C(8,8)-1(because we must exclude 1,same for C(8,0)), and as what i said, it equals to 2^(8-1)-1. So, the probability of the numbers that forming prime factor's numbers is an even number is 2^(8-1)-1/2^8 If there are amount of prime numbers exist, and we say that amount to n(n is a variable, as the k so), and sequence of upper works sameas we did, so the probability is 2^(n-1)/2^n. If you limits n to inf, then probability convergents to This answer coincident with the explain above, so explain is established, same as the Riemann hypothesis is.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Riemann hypothesis means that satisfying ζ(s)=0(ζ(s) means Riemann Zeta function) unselfevidenceable root's part of true numbers are Dennis Hejhal, and John Dubisher explained this hypothesis to : Choosed Any natural numbers(exclude 1 and constructed with two or higher powered prime numbers) then the probability of numbers that choosed number's forming prime factor become an even number is 1/2. I'll prove this explain to prove Riemann hypothesis indirectly. In binomial coefficient, C(n,0)+C(n+1)+...+C(n,n)=2^n. And C(n,1)+C(n,3)+C(n,5)+...+C(n,n) and C(n,0)+C(n,2)+C(n,4)+...+C(n,n) is 2^(n-1). If you pick up 8 prime numbers, then you can make numbers that exclude 1 and constructed with two or higher powered prime numbers, and the total amount of numbers that you made is 2^8. Same principle, if you pick the numbers in k times(k is a variable), the total amount of numbers you made is C(8,k). If k is an even number, the total amount of numbers you can make is C(8,0)+C(8,2)+...+C(8,8)-1(because we must exclude 1,same for C(8,0)), and as what i said, it equals to 2^(8-1)-1. So, the probability of the numbers that forming prime factor's numbers is an even number is 2^(8-1)-1/2^8 If there are amount of prime numbers exist, and we say that amount to n(n is a variable, as the k so), and sequence of upper works sameas we did, so the probability is 2^(n-1)/2^n. If you limits n to inf, then probability convergents to This answer coincident with the explain above, so explain is established, same as the Riemann hypothesis is.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Riemann hypothesis means that satisfying ζ(s)=0(ζ(s) means Riemann Zeta function) unselfevidenceable root's part of true numbers are Dennis Hejhal, and John Dubisher explained this hypothesis to : Choosed Any natural numbers(exclude 1 and constructed with two or higher powered prime numbers) then the probability of numbers that choosed number's forming prime factor become an even number is 1/2. I'll prove this explain to prove Riemann hypothesis indirectly. In binomial coefficient, C(n,0)+C(n+1)+...+C(n,n)=2^n. And C(n,1)+C(n,3)+C(n,5)+...+C(n,n) and C(n,0)+C(n,2)+C(n,4)+...+C(n,n) is 2^(n-1). If you pick up 8 prime numbers, then you can make numbers that exclude 1 and constructed with two or higher powered prime numbers, and the total amount of numbers that you made is 2^8. Same principle, if you pick the numbers in k times(k is a variable), the total amount of numbers you made is C(8,k). If k is an even number, the total amount of numbers you can make is C(8,0)+C(8,2)+...+C(8,8)-1(because we must exclude 1,same for C(8,0)), and as what i said, it equals to 2^(8-1)-1. So, the probability of the numbers that forming prime factor's numbers is an even number is 2^(8-1)-1/2^8 If there are amount of prime numbers exist, and we say that amount to n(n is a variable, as the k so), and sequence of upper works sameas we did, so the probability is 2^(n-1)/2^n. If you limits n to inf, then probability convergents to This answer coincident with the explain above, so explain is established, same as the Riemann hypothesis is.

Key concepts: Number theory, Natural number, Mathematics, Combinatorics, Riemann hypothesis, Prime number, Prime factor, Riemann zeta function

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Proof of Riemann Hypothesis — Research Paper | ScholarLens