ITT we prove the Riemann hypothesis one word at a time

of second-order

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...

nigger tongue my anus

Op is a faggot.

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

Wilderberger detected

That's the joke user.

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

Quantum-deterministic

classical

contravariant

statically indeterminant

frobenioid

constant

variable

.

If

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?

[math] \blacksquare [/math]

When

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

ζ(z)

because God said so

checkmate athiests

such that

there exist

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

for all x in A

...

>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

Top kek

Where did you find the math textbook font?

Veeky Forums needs to publish an academic paper

an covariant inversion on the n-manifold

You have to go back.

>nigger, why would you make it [math]

...

pg144 odds-only

p-adic numbers

Absolute kek.

Really makes you think.

Primality

Haha dude that shit is totally kafkaesque

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

It looks valid.

hyphen between fag-got
fucking perfect

tanquam ex ungue leonem

QED

/thread

Can't argue with that.

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).

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.

ayo hol up

whadif

we pluh in

imaginary numbas

n sheeit