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

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

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

Assuming

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

the circumference of

eGremlin
eGremlin

Lebesguian

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

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

Op is a faggot.

King_Martha
King_Martha

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

takes2long
takes2long

Wilderberger detected

Bidwell
Bidwell

That's the joke anon.

Inmate
Inmate

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

checkmate athiests

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

such that

Flameblow
Flameblow

there exist

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

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

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

Top kek

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

Where did you find the math textbook font?

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

Veeky Forums needs to publish an academic paper

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

an covariant inversion on the n-manifold

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

/pol/
You have to go back.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

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

Absolute kek.

Evilember
Evilember

Really makes you think.

Flameblow
Flameblow

Primality

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

Haha dude that shit is totally kafkaesque

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

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

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

It looks valid.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

hyphen between fag-got
fucking perfect

takes2long
takes2long

tanquam ex ungue leonem

Flameblow
Flameblow

QED

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

/thread

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

Can't argue with that.

King_Martha
King_Martha

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

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

ayo hol up

whadif

we pluh in

imaginary numbas

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

n sheeit

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit