ITT we prove the Riemann hypothesis one word at a time

RavySnake
RavySnake

I'll start:

Let

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

[math]\epsilon <0[/math]

RumChicken
RumChicken

[math]: \epsilon = - 1/12[/math]

eGremlin
eGremlin

nigger

RumChicken
RumChicken

@TurtleCat
Why would you make it <0 though. It's always >0.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

Assuming

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

the circumference of

eGremlin
eGremlin

Lebesguian

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@ZeroReborn
the cube ADBDEFGH

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

in each Kafkaesque category

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

of second-order

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

let [math]\eta[/math] be a non-trivial zero, [math]\mathbb{C}[/math] doesn't exist because [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] doesn't exist and there are no number above [math]10^{300}[/math] therefore [math]\eta < 10^{300}[/math] and thus...

Lunatick
Lunatick

nigger tongue my anus

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@Spazyfool
Op is a faggot.

King_Martha
King_Martha

@BunnyJinx
on the induced topology of the n+1 dimensional semi-spheroids with the Manhattan metric

takes2long
takes2long

@Spazyfool
Wilderberger detected

Bidwell
Bidwell

@RumChicken
That's the joke user.

Inmate
Inmate

@Bidwell
I actually thought there was something interesting to discover here. Thanks for ruining it for me.

Firespawn
Firespawn

Quantum-deterministic

girlDog
girlDog

classical

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

contravariant

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

statically indeterminant

5mileys
5mileys

frobenioid

cum2soon
cum2soon

constant

askme
askme

variable

idontknow
idontknow

.

hairygrape
hairygrape

If

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

Could someone sum up, how would this function tell us about the number of primes in some region?
And the main question does calculating the number of primes using this function in some region is less demanding than classical (standard) methods?
Also, what are some areas, where knowing how many primes are in some region can be useful?

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

[math] \blacksquare [/math]

Methnerd
Methnerd

When

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

[eqn]e^x=0[/eqn]

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

ΞΆ(z)

happy_sad
happy_sad

because God said so

Bidwell
Bidwell

@happy_sad
checkmate athiests

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

such that

Flameblow
Flameblow

there exist

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

@Gigastrength
I up this. Any kindanon explain this like you'd do it for a retard please.

StonedTime
StonedTime

for all x in A

FastChef
FastChef

@RavySnake
mfw an infinite number of anons hitting keys at random on their mechanical keyboards will never ever type a proof confirming or refuting the Riemann hypothesis

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@TechHater
Top kek

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

@TechHater
Where did you find the math textbook font?

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

@TechHater
Veeky Forums needs to publish an academic paper

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

an covariant inversion on the n-manifold

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

@eGremlin
@Lunatick
/pol/
You have to go back.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

@TechHater
nigger, why would you make it [math]<0[/math] though
nicely added comma

Methshot
Methshot

pg144 odds-only

Methnerd
Methnerd

p-adic numbers

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

@happy_sad
Absolute kek.

Evilember
Evilember

@happy_sad
Really makes you think.

Flameblow
Flameblow

@RavySnake
Primality

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

@PurpleCharger
Haha dude that shit is totally kafkaesque

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@Gigastrength
Any math dudes out here?
We are waiting for comments.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

@happy_sad
It looks valid.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@happy_sad
hyphen between fag-got
fucking perfect

takes2long
takes2long

@TechHater
tanquam ex ungue leonem

Flameblow
Flameblow

QED

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@Flameblow
/thread

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@happy_sad
Can't argue with that.

King_Martha
King_Martha

@Gigastrength
@ZeroReborn
Prime number theorem (pi(x) ~ (approaches) x/lnx, where pi(x) is the prime counting function, e.g. pi(2)=1, pi(10)=pi(9)=4) is equivalent to the statement [math]\zeta(a+ib) \neq 0 : a=0[/math], or that it has no zeros with real part s = 0. There is no elementary proof of prime number theorem, as of yet, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining exactly how this connection works and why, but basically, let [math]\displaystyle R(x)=1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac {(\ln{x})^n} {nn!\zeta(n+1)} [/math] (that +1 comes in because 1 isn't prime, but some equations act like it is), [math]R(x)-\pi(x)=\sum\limits_{\rho} R(x^\rho)[/math] where [math]\rho[/math] is a nontrivial zero of zeta.

Note that none of this really can be applied to anything, despite what popsci articles tell you. We already know primes larger than computers even bother to use, and lookup tables for factorizations have already been made. Besides, all that the Riemann hypothesis does to solve this is allow approximations of pi(x). For example, if it's true, [math]\pi(x)=Li(x)+O(sqrt(x)\ln(x))[/math] where [math]Li(x)=\int_2^x\frac {dt} {\ln{t}} [/math] (which doesn't have a closed form expression).

Spamalot
Spamalot

@King_Martha
Oops, I mean a=1, not a=0 for that top statement. I'm pretty sure the a=0 case is trivial, but I forget now.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@RavySnake

ayo hol up

whadif

we pluh in

imaginary numbas

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

@Harmless_Venom
n sheeit

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page