You are on page 1of 39


It has been shown in the solution of the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) presented in this
document that the RH and the Prime Number Theorem (PNT) are solidly linked. The
PNT was proved in 1896 by Jacques-Solomon Hadamard and Charles Jean de la Vallee-
Poussin, and is universally accepted by mathematicians. The relationship between the RH
and the PNT values, as illustrated in this document in Tables (2&3), is so close, the RH
values might have been more effective in the proof of Chebyshev’s Conjecture for the
PNT instead of vice versa. In both the RH and the PNT, the zeros (primes) of the RH and
the primes of the PNT produce the same result within a value of 1.6 % for the entire
counting number line. They both clearly show that the zeros (primes) of the RH are
infinite and lie on the “critical line”, and the primes of the PNT are infinite and also lie on
the same line. The conclusion that the RH is true, perforce, must be accepted; or
alternatively, the PNT must be rejected as false.

In addition, the role of the principle of “The Excess of Nines” on both the RH and PNT is
illustrated. I have read numerous articles concerning the RH and the PNT and have yet to
find any mention of this principle, which I believe is critical to the solutions of both. It is
this principle that gives the beginning, mid, and terminal values of each cycle as
defined in this document; precluding the existence of Ref (10) zeros at these specific
points since the excess of nines = 1 at each. (see Section VII).

A simple ratio which I chose to call Martin’s Ratio permits converting PNT values to
RH values or vice versa and then to replicate any of the Ref (10) zeros with either; the
only variant being cycle number. Martin’s Ratio provides a clear theorem approach to
the proof of the RH by utilizing the PNT as a corollary proof.

Mack Lendon Martin

(July 10, 2007)

By Mack L. Martin

I Historical Background

In 1859 Bernhard Riemann introduced complex numbers into the zeta function of
Leonhard Euler and the function took on the name of the Riemann zeta function.
Riemann conjectured that the prime numbers were intimately linked with his conjecture,
and all the zeros of the function would lie on the “critical line” at x = . The function,
first introduced:

ζ ( s ) = ∑ n− s
n =1
by Euler in 1740, where s was confined to the interval s>1 for all real numbers. Euler also
showed the equivalence of the zeta function to the Euler Product Formula, which he

 1 
ζ ( s ) = ∏ 1 − s  (1.2)
n =1  pn 
Riemann’s conjecture became known as the Riemann Hypothesis (RH), but needed to be
analytically continued to be valid in the range 0<x<1 for the complex number s = x + it
or more specifically, for, s = + it . Since the notation for complex numbers used by
engineers and scientists is z = x + iy , from hereon the complex number used to determine
the zeros will be noted as z = + it which will not cause any difficulty. The analytic
continuation of the Riemann zeta function will then be:

( −1)
∞ n −1
ζ ( z) =
1 − 21− z

n =1 nz

This equation extends the validity of the Riemann zeta function to the interval of interest:

0 < Re < 1

The zeta function in this form will produce zeros for all values found on the website,
Ref (10).

Much of the above information can be found in numerous sources on the web, but most
of that which follows was a discovery of the author, since during all of the research I
have done, I have not seen a single reference to the techniques I have used to solve the

II Analysis

The initial approach that I have taken in the solution of the RH is geometric/mathematical
that provides a better insight into its structure. This approach led to the theorem statement
in Section VIII.

The operative function that I have investigated is the form shown in equation (1.3),
repeated below for convenience, which I decided to analyze as two separate terms. This
causes no concern since the first term merely multiplies the summand and its absolute
value is always within the interval 2 − 1 ≤ M ≤ 2 + 1 :
( −1)
∞ n −1
ζ ( z) = 1− z ∑
1 − 2 n=1 n z
(1.3) repeated.

….is defined as the M-Component.
1 − 21− z
( −1) ….is defined as the Z-Component.
∞ n −1

n =1 nz

The M-Component is vital to the solution I will present, beyond its primary purpose of
making the zeta function analytic in the interval 0<x<1, it has ramifications that extend to
the Prime Number Theorem (PNT) proven by Hadamard and Vallee-Poussin in 1896.
While experimenting with the M-Component, using Ref.(9), I discovered that for odd
values of k inputted into z = + it , where t was computed with the algorithm
t = ⋅ ( 9.064720283654 ) , the M-Component evaluated to 0.414; when even numbers
were used it evaluated to –(2.414). This was true for any odd or even number used on the
natural number line and I had no idea why this strange expression caused the M-
Component to behave in this manner. Then once, while performing an operation on the

zeta function with Ref (9), I noticed that an exponent of 2 was returned as . It was
ln ( 2 )
apparent that this ratio might evaluate to the above large number; and it did exactly. This
was a serendipitous discovery that I wish I could say came about constructively. At any
rate, this discovery set the course for nearly all of my subsequent activity.

Since the assumption has already been made that the real part of the complex number z to
be used is x = , the M-Component can be put into a form that is dependent only on the
imaginary part t substituted into the M-Component for z in:

2 (1.4)
1− it
After first tailoring, without changing its value, to have our newfound term (which for
lack of a better descriptor, I will call the period cycle) accept values of t in terms of k.

k  2π 
t =   k = 1, 2,3.....n of the natural number line. (1.5)
2  ln ( 2 ) 

k 2π
k M 2 ln ( 2 )
( 2 +1 ) 0

( 2 − 1) 4.53236014

( 2 + 1) 9.06472028

( 2 − 1) 13.59708043

( 2 + 1) 18.12944057

The first few values of t, as well as the absolute values of M, are shown in the table above
for the beginning values of k. As indicated, the maximum absolute value of M is 2.414
and the minimum absolute value is 0.414. It will be proven that a zero of the zeta
function is constrained to occur only at a fractional value of k, and this will have an affect
extending into the Prime Number Theorem.

It is advantageous to plot equation (1.4) in order to analyze its geometric construction.

The software uses a range variable to generate the points for the plot, and if it is too large,
it is almost impossible to follow the manner in which the plot is constructed. The range
variable determines the number of points t to plot; however, to see the odd and even
behavior of the plot, it is necessary to plot the t values prior to multiplication by the
constant of the period cycle. Using a very large range variable, the red-colored figure in
the Fig (1) will take on a circular geometry with a radius of 1.414 and centered at (-1, 0).

The mirror image (blue) was included to enhance the symmetry of the figure, but it is
unnecessary to explain it. In order to reveal exactly how the figure is generated, the range
variable must be considerably reduced and the mirror image figure removed. When this is
done, and Fig (2) is referenced, the letter groupings start to the left of the graphic
beginning with A at 0, and continue counter-clockwise around the graphic with each

column of numbers, in sequence with the natural numbers, until grouping I is reached at
8, or until 1 cycle is completed at k = 9 again at A. The procedure is repeated until I at 17
is reached with cycle 2 at k = 18 at A, etc.


t 0 .. 145 Range variable

zt t.i Complex number entry in terms of t

M M-Component and mirror image (blue)
1 z
1 2


Im M

Im M 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5



Re M , Re M
t t
Figure (1)

One should be aware that the first zero, which can be found in Ref (10), is alone on the
second cycle. There are no zeros on the first cycle. The number of zeros per cycle
increase slowly until there are an infinite number on the cycle at infinity. It will be shown
that the entire listing of Ref (10) zeros can be computed and plotted per cycle.

I would like to pause at this point to say a word about the descriptor that I chose to call
k  2π 
the RH cycle that I just introduced, viz.,   . This term is parallel to, and appears
2  ln ( 2 ) 
to be more suited than the ln(n), discovered by Gauss, in its relationship to the PNT and
the RH (see Tables (2 and 3)).

The procedure described in Fig. (1) and Fig. (2) is continued ad infinitum until the entire
set of the number line values approach infinity. These number line values are the k values
from whence the cycle values are generated. Neither the odd nor even integral k values
can generate the zeros of the zeta function. The even integral k values generate the
beginning and terminating values of each cycle, while the odd integral create the mid-
cycle values It is clear that only the fractional values of k generate Ref (10) zeros. A zero

cannot occur if the “Excess of Nines = 1”. It will be explained that this behavior is also
responsible for the so-called Lehmer’s phenomenon.

Figure (2)

Graphic of the M-Component

Figure (3)

If the range variables for Fig (1) and Fig (2) are made very large, the envelopes of the
figures will transform to the above graphic with the following equation:

M = − cos(ϑ ) + (cos(ϑ )) 2 + 1 (1.6)

which is consistent with the previously stated 2 −1 ≤ M ≤ 2 + 1 . It is now easy to

see that arg (M)>90° produces an “excess of nines = 0” in column A in Fig.(2) and
column B follows with the excess of 9’s =1, which always precludes the existence of a
Ref.(10) zero. The remaining columns, C through I, all have k values with the potential
for producing zeros. I have not seen any mathematical references to the principle of the
“excess of nines”, and yet I have discovered, and will illustrate later in this document,
that it is a fundamental property of both the Riemann Hypothesis and the Prime Number

All period cycle values were computed by multiplying by the k values as previously
k  2π 
t =   (1.5) Repeated
2  ln ( 2 ) 

Utilizing equation (1.5), the following partial table of values was produced demonstrating
the way the beginning, mid-cycle, and terminating values of the RH cycles through cycle
20 were calculated. Naturally, the list could continue to infinity.

Table (1) The Period Cycles for the RH

Even k Period Cycle Odd k Mid-Cycle Cycle

Values Start and End Values Values Period
0 0
2 9.06472 1 4.53236 1
4 18.12944 3 13.59708 2
6 27.19416 5 22.66180 3
8 36.25888 7 31.72652 4
10 45.32360 9 40.79124 5
12 54.38832 11 49.85596 6
14 63.45304 13 58.92068 7
16 72.51776 15 67.98540 8
18 81.58248 17 77.05012 9
20 90.64720 19 86.11484 10
22 99.71192 21 95.17956 11
24 108.7766 23 104.2443 12
26 117.8414 25 113.3090 13
28 126.9061 27 122.3737 14
30 135.9708 29 131.4384 15
32 145.0355 31 140.5032 16
34 154.1002 33 149.5679 17
36 163.1650 35 158.6326 18
38 172.2297 37 167.6973 19
40 181.2944 39 176.7620 20

Zero is the beginning of period cycle 1 and 9.06472 is the ending value. Clearly then,
period cycle 2 extends from 9.06472 to 18.12944, with 4.53236 and 13.59708 as the mid-
cycle value of each, respectively. The first zero, t = 14.134725 Ref (10), is the only zero
on cycle 2. All of the remaining cycles have two or more zeros with the number
increasing to infinity as k approaches infinity.

III Theorem Approach to the Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis

The proof of the Prime Number Theorem (PNT) was based on a conjecture by
Chebyshev in 1851 that if the following expression has a limit it must be:

π (n) ln(n)
lim 1 (1.7)
n  n

 (n)  is the number of primes up to the number n.  (n) is unrelated to
the constant 3.14159.

ln(n) = the natural logarithm of n to the base e = 2.71828…

Carl Friedrich Gauss, the prince of mathematicians, and Legendre among others, were
aware of the uncanny agreement of the ln(n) and , but none were successful
 ( n)
in its proof.

In 1859, Bernhard Riemann tried to prove the conjecture by utilizing Leonhard Euler’s
product formula and substituting complex numbers for real variables. Riemann was able
to show that the distribution of prime numbers is closely allied to the properties of the
function  ( s) defined by the series first introduced by Euler called the zeta function.
After introducing complex variables into the zeta function it became known as the
Riemann zeta function and had to be analytically continued to be valid in the interval
0 < s < 1. Euler’s zeta function for real numbers is valid only in the interval s > 1 .
 ( s) is an analytic function with a single pole at s=1.

Ref (15) shows the proof of the PNT independently discovered in 1896 by Jacques-
Salomon Hadamard and Charles Jean de la Vallee-Poussin.

IV Analysis

The discovery of a parameter of the RH that is fundamental to this theorem solution

is shown below in equation (1.5). This parameter could have served as a more
powerful proof of the PNT if Hadamard and Vallee-Poussin had known of equation

Gauss discovered in his early years by simply counting the primes up to a number n,
that the number of primes contained in n is related to the logarithm of n. It is not difficult
to see why this became the basis of the Chebyshev’s Conjecture shown above in
equation (1.7).

Extracting data from Ref (15) for the PNT and modifying it in Tables (2 and 3),
we can change the form of n without changing their values, i.e., 102,104,106…etc.
as follows:
n  102 k (1.8)

ln( n)  2k ln(10) (1.9)

where, again, k=1,2,3….  ,or the natural number line.

The parameter for the RH of equation (1.5) in all respects is akin to equation (1.9) and
given by:

 k   2 
   (1.5) Repeated
 2   ln(2) 

where k has the same values as above. It will be shown below that it is important to
obtain the ratio of equation (1.9) to (1.5), or:

PNT  (2 k ln(10))

 k   2 
RH    
 2   ln(2) 

Ratio   1.016064488 (1.10)

Naturally, this ratio, I will call it Martin’s Ratio since I discovered it, is independent of k
and therefore persists throughout the entire input values of the natural number line.

Equation (1.5) is a direct consequence of the manner in which the Riemann zeta function
was analytically continued to be valid in the interval 0<s<1 as shown in Appendix (A).

The data contained in the tables below in all accounts is consistent with the data extracted
from Ref (15).

V The Prime Number Theorem (PNT)

The following data was extracted directly from Ref (15) and formatted to facilitate the
comparison of the RH with the PNT.

n π ( n) n ln ( n ) k 2k ln ( 10 ) k 2π
π ( n) 2 ln ( 2 )
102 25 4.000 4.605 1 4.605 4.532
104 1, 229 8.137 9.210 2 9.210 9.065
106 78, 498 12.739 13.816 3 13.816 13.597
108 5,761, 455 17.357 18.421 4 18.421 18.129
1010 455,052,511 21.975 23.026 5 23.026 22.662
1012 37,607,912,018 26.590 27.631 6 27.631 27.194
1014 3, 204,941,750,802 31.202 32.236 7 32.236 31.727
1023 1,925,320,391, 606,818, 006, 727 51.939 52.959 11.5 52.959 52.122

Table (2)

π ( n) π ( n ) k  2π 
⋅ 2k ln ( 10 ) ⋅  
n n 2  ln ( 2 ) 
1.151293 1.133090
1.131951 1.114054
1.084490 1.067344
1.061299 1.044520
1.047797 1.031231
1.039145 1.022716
1.033151 1.016817
1.019639 1.003518

Table (3)

The first column of Table (3) indicates the tendency of the calculations to verify
Chebyshev’s Conjecture; the values are decreasing and approaching unity as the k
values approach infinity. Fortunately, I do not have to prove this as Hadamard and Vallee-
Poussin have already done so, Ref (15).

The second column of Table (3) was constructed using the RH equation (1.5) and shows
the definite link between the RH and the PNT. In fact, it could be said that the RH values
are better suited for the proof of the PNT since the approach to unity is faster. Further, it
would be illogical to assume the values from the RH are approaching some limit other

than unity, especially since the constant difference between the two columns can be
reconciled by multiplying the RH values by the previously determined Martin’s Ratio
=1.016064488 to obtain the values in column 1, or vice-versa.

The fourth and sixth columns of Table (2) show the logarithm of n and its remarkable
agreement with column three discovered by Gauss. Column seven, a better agreement
with column three, was discovered accidentally by the author from the analytical
continuation of the Riemann zeta function (note the hiatus between n =1014 and 1023), or:

( 1)
n 1

1 s 
ζ ( s)   (the change of variable is not relevant) (1.3) Repeated
1 2 n 1 ns

The term multiplying the summand is alone responsible for the values in column seven.
Gauss could not explain why the number n divided by the number of primes up to n were
nearly equal to ln(n). I believe the reason for the behavior of the Gauss parameter and for
the parameter I discovered are both related to a principle of “the excess of nines” (Ref
(2). This principle and the reason why I think it links the RH to the PNT will be described

VI The Limit Process applied to the Chebyshev Conjecture.

VII Principle of Excess of Nines.

Since the value of s in equation (1.3) depends on the complex number s   i t
 2   k   2 
where t  Cycle       and k=1,2,3....n of the natural number line.
 ln(2)   2   ln(2) 
It is evident that all odd or even (whole number) values of k produce an excess of nines=1
and therefore cannot generate a zeta function zero. Further, it is true that all zeros occur
from the fractional values of the k’s; when an unscheduled “Excess of Nines =1” occurs,

so does a “Lehmer event”. The plotted data briefly passes through an excess of nines =1,
wavers, then becomes fractional again, crosses the real axis and produces a zero. These
events are cyclic, happening many times along the path to infinity (see Appendix(A)).

Figure (4)

Figure (5)

From Fig.(5), it is clear that the parameters of the PNT are greater than the RH by the
constant Ratio =1.016064488 throughout the natural number line. This Ratio can be used
to reconcile any difference between the two, e.g., the first Lehmer event for the PNT
occurs at  1861.367 instead of 1891.2689 where it occurs for the RH,
2 2 ln(10)

or  1861.367 . Appendix (A) contains several plots that illustrate other
Lehmer events.

1891.2689   17143.8218

Figure (6)

In the research I have done on the RH, it has been interesting to notice that it seems to be
that more people are trying to disprove the conjecture than to prove it. In Ref (14), a
crude graph is presented that purports to indicate a possible failure of the RH. The
graphic plots the gradient of the hills and valleys along Riemann’s “critical line”. The
point cited as a potential failure appears to occur at the so-called “Lehmer’s
Phenomenon” (which it isn’t) at t  Cycle   17143.8218 , the precise value as in
my calculations and in the Ref (10) compendium of zeros of the zeta function. There are
many of these events that occur cyclically which I have renamed “Lehmer’s Events” as
described in Appendix (A). These events are responsible for the cause celebre that the
RH might be false which it is not.

VIII Theorem Statement

The Riemann Hypothesis: The non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function have
1 1
the complex input s   i t , where the real part e( s )  and the imaginary part
2 2
( s)  i t . The parameter t can have input values from the RH or the PNT to
replicate the Ref (10) zeros as will be shown in Appendix (A).

 k   2 
The value from the RH is: t   .
 2   ln(2) 

The value from the PNT is: t  2 k ln(10) .

The k value in either expression is the natural number line k  1, 2,3.... .

It has already been shown that the constant ratio of parameters is:

Martin’s Ratio  1.016064488

which states that PNT values can always be found from the RH values and vice versa.

This fortunate set of circumstances, coupled with the “excess of nines principle”,
provides a glimpse of understanding into the close relationship of ln(n) with
 ( n)
 k   2 
discovered by Gauss and   discovered by the author. Either value has been
 2   ln(2) 
shown to satisfy Chebyshev’s Conjecture, with the RH value tending to provide a faster
progression to unity as k   .

The proof of the PNT has been established. Therefore, the Prime Number Theorem
proof is a corollary to the proof of The Riemann Hypothesis. The proof is conclusive
that all the non-trivial zeros (primes) are on the “critical line” at x = ½ and that they
  as t   (equation (1.3). This completes the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis
verifying that it is, indeed, true.

IX Summary Comments

(1) The discovery of the RH period cycle was key to the solution of the RH.

(2)The uncanny agreement of the RH period cycle, discovered by the author, with the
PNT period cycle (discovered by Gauss), demonstrates the immutable link
between the PNT( proved in 1896) and the RH. This solid association of the two is at
the heart of the Riemann Hypothesis. The RH period cycle and its association with
the PNT has been fully explained as the result of the principle of the “Excess of

(3) This solution would not have been possible without the Ref (10) list of zero’s as a
“sanity check”. .

(4) Lehmer’s Phenomenon is explained as a consequence of the manner in which the

M-Component generates the period cycle and frequency of the RH and is not
a phenomenon threatening the possibility of the truth of the RH in any way.

(5)The reason the graph of the gradient of the hills and valleys shown on page 217
of Ref. (14) does not cross the abscissa is also a consequence of the M-Component.

(6)An explanation of the frequency of the RH as multiples of 144, i.e., 288, 432, 576,
etc., to infinity was completely defined and shown to be due to the “Excess of Nines”

(7) The Riemann Hypothesis was shown to be true, from a corollary proof by the
Prime Number Theorem. The parameters from the RH or the PNT can be
interchanged to replicate the zeros of Ref (10). In addition, the RH and the PNT
were both shown to satisfy Chebyshev’s Conjecture.

(8 The values of columns 6 and 7 in Table (2), illustrated for the Prime Number
Theorem, can be completely interchanged to produce the zeros of Ref (10) as shown
in Appendix (A). This single action is sufficient to verify the truth of the RH
if the PNT proof is valid.

(9) I made the assertion (Section VII), that all odd and even (whole number) k values of
the natural number line produce an “excess of nines”=1, and therefore cannot be
an RH zero (prime), nor a PNT (prime). The even numbered k values were shown to
be responsible for the beginning and terminus of each cycle to infinity. A
consequence of this is only fractional values of k can generate zeros or primes, and
the final cycle at infinity must end with an even value of k . If one believes as I do,
it would be an incongruence of Nature to arrive at infinity with an incomplete cycle.
Therefore, as Bombieri opined in Ref (13) concerning the prime numbers, “There is
no prime at infinity – that’s clear to me at least”. My last comment supports
Bombieri’s contention.

X References:

(1) Edwards, H. M. “Riemann’s Zeta Function”, Dover Publications, Inc. Mineola, New

(2) James, G. and James, R. C. "Mathematics Dictionary" Princeton, New Jersey: D.

Van Nostrand Company, Inc.

(3) Gullberg, J. "Mathematics From the Birth of Numbers" New York, London: W. W.
Norton & Company.

(4) Wikipedia, Legendre’s Constant (’s_constant)

(5) Patterson, S. J. "An Introduction to the Theory of the Riemann Zeta-Function" New
York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

(6) Ogilvy, C. S. and Anderson, J. T. "Excursions in Number Theory" New York: Dover
Publications, Inc.

(7) Courant, R. and John, F. "Introduction to Calculus and Analysis,Vol. I and II" New
York, London: Interscience Publishers, A Division of John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

(8) Singh, S. "Fermat's Enigma" New York: Anchor Books, A Division of Random
House, Inc.

(9) Mathcad Software, MathSoft, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02142.

(10) Odlyzko, A. "Andrew Odlyzko: Tables of Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function."

(11) Download from the Claymath URL: Problems of the Millennium:The Riemann
Hypothesis, E. Bombieri.

(12) Gradshteyn I.S. and Ryzhik I.M., “Table of Integrals, Series, and Products”:
Academic Press (Sixth Edition).

(13) Sabbagh, K. “THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS, The Greatest Unsolved Problem in

Mathematics” Farrar, Straus and Giroux / New York.

(14) Du Sautoy, M. “The Music of the Primes” Perennial (An Imprint of Harper Collins

(15) “Analytic Number Theory: The Prime Number Theorem”, Britannica CD, Version
99 C 1994-1998.

XI Appendix (A)

The data contained in this appendix is not necessary to substantiate the proof of the
Riemann Hypothesis but there is much evidence here to support it. The information
presented in this document is sufficient to prove the Riemann Hypothesis is true,
except possibly for the few that have the temerity to deny it without proof to the contrary.

Lehmer’s Phenomenon

I will show the indisputable correlation of the characteristics of the Riemann Hypothesis
with those of the Prime Number Theorem. They both will replicate the zeros of the zeta
function shown in Ref (10), utilizing the input data from either, and will differ only by the
cycle of occurrence that I have defined. I have devoted much attention to a so-called
“Lehmer’s Phenomenon (LP)”, which I would have been content to not mention further;
however, Ref (14), (pgs. 213-219), has devoted about as much time on the subject
without recognizing that it’s the same debutant in different attire. The designation is an
over-statement and I have elected to rename it “Lehmer’s Events (LE)”. There seems to
be a prevailing notion among some mathematicians that the LP may be the signal of a
counter-example to the RH making it false. The LP occurs at t = 17143.3218 (a computed
value also verified by Ref (10)), that correlates to the precise point shown in Ref (14). I
will defer the reader to the cited reference, and present my reasons for declining the lofty
name. I was aware of the LP long before it appeared in Ref (14), but was unaware of its
influence in the possible conclusion that it might be a “prophet” to the falsity of the RH.

This event occurs because of the mechanization of the M-Component described

previously. Recall the constant  9.06472028 will increase by a value of 1 when
multiplied by each group of 16 cycles, i.e., 16, 32, 48, etc. Since the fractional portion of
the constant is (0.06472028)(16)=1.03552448, a spurious introduction of an additional
increase of 1 causes an unscheduled “excess of nines=1”. This results in a momentary
“waver” in the plot (computed data), due to the fact that a zero cannot occur at an excess
of nines =1 (See Fig (4)). A sudden return to fractional values of t permits the plot to
cross the real axis, thus creating a “Lehmer Event” (LE). An LE will occur at each
increment of 144 units of the natural number line, or (9)(16)= 144 as illustrated in Fig (2
and 4). I have defined this interval as the frequency in accordance with Ref (2):

The frequency of a periodic function in a given interval is the quotient

of the length of the interval and the period of the function (i.e., the
number of times the function repeats itself in the given interval).

It should be obvious, then, that the first frequency occurs at natural number 32 or k= 32
which by our definition of cycles is 16 equating to the first frequency interval of 144.The
following sequence of natural numbers corresponding to the second, third, and fourth
frequencies, etc., is 64, 96, 128, 160….  , giving cycles 32, 48, 64, 80…  , with

corresponding frequency intervals of 145.035, 290.071, 435.106, 580.142, 725.177…  .
The list of nominal frequencies, then, is144, 288, 432, 576…  . Using this procedure, it
is clear that the LE (computed and extracted from the Ref (10) list as t = 17143.8218) is
between cycles 1891 and 1892 as will be shown, and therefore is in a region where
crossing the real axis must occur, thus precluding a counter-example for the RH. This
potential occurrence repeats over and over at each frequency generating additional LE
examples. The occasional reluctance of the graph shown in Ref (14) to cross the real axis
is a direct result of these LE’s.

The first four LE frequency intervals are cycles 1892, 3784, 5676, and 7568 which have
been computed and plotted. The method was developed by the author that obviates the
necessity for using the Riemann-Siegel formula for finding the RH zeros. The LE plots
for the mentioned cycles have the following t values, computed and extracted from Ref
(10), they are:

First Event………..17143.8218
Second Event……..34295.3720
Third Event……….51448.0763
Fourth Event………68597.9714

These values have a nearly constant difference, substantiating the appearance of an LE at

the specified cycles and frequencies.

The procedure that I devised for finding any of the LE was generalized from the method
from which I found the first one. Recalling that each group of 16 cycles produced the
nominal frequencies of (9) (16) = 144. Using this nominal, the number of groups of 16
cycles is needed starting with the known LP = 17143.8218 / 9.0647202 =1891.26859. It
was evident from this, that the cycle beginning was probably 1891 and the ending
1892. Since cycle numbering was chosen as the ending number the LP must be on cycle
1892. Now, the value of cycle at 1892 / 144 = 13.13888889 (the number of 16 cycle
groups). The actual frequency interval for the first group of 16 was 145.0355245; thus the
frequency for cycle 1892 must be (145.0355245) (13.13888889) = 1905.605642. Finally,
(1905.605642) (9) = 17150.4508. This is the precise value of the terminus of this cycle
enclosing the first LP. The second LP cycle will be twice the first, or 3784. This
procedure can be repeated to obtain any LE desired.

The first LE =17143.8218 has been computed and plotted below as Figure (7). The
complete procedure is presented in this first data sheet which will not be included for
the plotted Fig (8) .If the reader desires to check the plotted data it will be necessary to
procure a copy of Ref (9), Version 8 or later.

1891.2689   17143.8218

3783.39    34295.372
3783.39  34295.372
1861.3668 (2 2 ln(10))

The plots for the third and fourth LE, 51448.0763 and 68597.9714, respectively, would
follow the same procedure as Fig. (7 and 8), so these two LE will not be plotted.

It is important to point out, again, that all the zeros of Ref (10) can be replicated using
either the RH values of t or the PNT values. The k values used are the same for either,
and both satisfy the Chebyshev Conjecture (Section VI); however the plotted data will,
for a given RH cycle, appear earlier for the same data appearing on the equivalent PNT
cycle. To illustrate this, the first LE plot will be shown next after locating the PNT cycle
exactly; then, producing the plot using PNT values exclusively, except for cycle number:

1861.3668 (2 2 ln(10))

For the reviewers that are still unconvinced after confronting the indisputable evidence of
the arguments presented in this document that the Riemann Hypothesis is unequivocally
true, I will, using Chebyshev’s Conjecture (proven), administer the coup de grace.

Recalling equation (1.7):

 (n) ln(n)
lim 1 (1.7) Repeated
x  n

and utilizing this statement of Chebyshev and the software of Ref (9), and emphasizing
that this should not be deemed a computer solution, I submit the following additional
Table (4). This table is a comparison of RH and PNT parameters and values and will be
used in the mathematical exercise that follows:

Comparison of some pertinent values and parameters of RH and PNT

k n  102 k k
Cycle 
2 tb tm te tb tm te
1 10 2 4.532 4.605

2 104 1 0 9.064 0 9.210

3 106 13.597 13.816

4 108 2 9.064 18.129 9.210 18.421

5 1010 22.662 23.026

6 1012 3 18.129 27.194 18.421 27.631

7 1014 31.727 32.236

8 1016 4 27.194 36.259 27.631 36.841

9 1018 40.791 41.447

10 1020 5 36.259 45.324 36.841 46.052

89 10178 403.380 409.860

90 10180 45 398.848 407.912 405.255 414.465

3783 107566 17145.9 17421.4

3784 107568 1892 17141.4 17150.4 17416.7 17425.9

Table (4)

 (n) ln(n)
The conjecture states the lim  1 . Using appropriate values from Ref (4), or:
n  n

 (n)  1925320391606818006727
n  1023
ln(n)  23 ln(10)  52.9594571
 (n) ln(n)
 1.019639

Indications are that the PNT value is very near Martin’s Ratio at n   which results in
the RH value of Table (3) attaining the value 1 prior to the PNT value as was suggested
earlier and in Appendix (B).

Chebyshev’s Conjecture appears to be approaching the indicated limit as n approaches

infinity. Note that all of these computations are confined to the PNT. The technique for
arriving at the RH values can be derived by a judicious application of Martin’s Ratio
equation (1.10) to the PNT values and parameters as illustrated previously. It will be
shown in Section XII, Appendix (B) that Legendre’s Constant instead of being 1.08366
might be equal to Martin’s Ratio (1.016064488).

One Final Note on Lehmer’s prediction that his phenomenon (event) would recur
infinitely often, reported Ref (1), 8.3, pg.179, is true for the reasons given at the
beginning of this Appendix. Ostensibly, from data supported by the Gram point
methodology, a pair of zeros in the vicinity of the 13,400,000 th zero were separated by a
distance inconsistent with Gram point data in this region. The author of Ref (1) remarked
that it would be interesting to have a graph, such as Lehmer’s (Fig.3) on the facing page,
in this region. The following explanation and graphs will not only provide such a graph in
terms of t, it will corroborate the procedure at the t=13,400,006.8 Lehmer event shown on
pg.22 of this document, thus vindicating the prediction of this author, and simultaneously
vindicating the prediction of Lehmer.

Following the procedure at the beginning of Appendix (A) for the first Lehmer event, the
one occurring near the 13,400,000th zero will be determined. The first frequency interval
occurs at the 16th Cycle at (9)(16)=144 units of the natural number line as explained in
the body of this document. Each succeeding frequency interval is a multiple of the
frequency at the 16th Cycle. It is then only necessary to determine the number of groups of
16 Cycles contained in the Cycle for the RH at the desired zero. From the RH data sheet
this can be observed to be 10265.69444. At the first frequency, it was explained that the
actual value is (9.064720284)(16)=145.0355245. This suggests that the frequency near
the 13,400,000th zero is (10265.69444)(144)=1478259.99. When this latter value is
multiplied by 9.064720284, the terminal value, Te =13400013.4 is given for the RH (Fig.
(10).This same terminal value Te exists for the PNT (Fig. (11) but the Cycle value of the
PNT must be decreased by Martin’s Ratio to 1454888 due to the earlier occurrence

of the PNT with larger values than the RH. The beginning value Tb = 13400004.34 for the
PNT is less for the same reason. The following three figures replicate the same event in
three different ways. Figure (10) is constructed exactly like the first Lehmer Event in
Fig.(7) above, except the much larger Cycle value =1478260 was substituted after finding
this value by a ratio of similar values of the first Lehmer Event to the desired event, or:

13400000  1478258.52 (rounded to 1478260).

Referencing Fig.(10), it can be observed that the RH values were utilized to produce the
graphic. Fig. (11) uses the PNT values and Fig. (12) applies Martin’s Ratio to the RH
values to obtain the equivalent PNT values. All of the figures produce the exact same
plots verifying the cyclic nature of the Lehmer Events.

For all three plots, the calculated value of the Lehmer Event occurs approximately at the
value 13400006.8 atCycle = 1478260 for the RH and 1454888 for the PNT.I am not a
believer in the Gram point process so I will let the reader associate those values with the
plotted data.

A personal note from the author:

It has been an unbelievable journey chasing the RH for nearly seven years in almost
constant pursuit. I am certain, although others may disagree, that the solution is correct.
A few of the convoluted paths taken, all of which were arduous and some times
misleading, led me to discover things that I believe are unique and key to the solution.
Much of the information posted on the web about the RH is outright false, and some is
only confusing. My discovery of the RH cycle parameter is in all respects the equivalent
of Gauss’ discovery of the relationship of the ln(n) to the PRT, although both were
serendipitously found. Also Martin’s Ratio between the PNT and RH is a constant that
allows many values of either to be interchanged. In addition, the “Excess of Nines”
principle is a fundamental attribute of both.

I undertook an attempt at solving the RH because of the faith a friend had in me who
knew of my life-long love of the subject of mathematics; and not because of the bounty
placed upon its solution. Riemann was unquestionably a genius. What else could you call
a mathematician that has confounded other mathematicians for a century and a half?

Mack L. Martin
July10, 2007

XII Appendix (B)

In Ref (4), Adrien-Marie Legendre’s conjecture that the prime counting function:
 ( n) 
ln(n)  A(n)

Where lim  A(n)   1.08366...

n 

The quantity 1.08366…was called Legendre’s constant, and in Ref (4) is stated as a
“phantom” that really does not exist, in fact, Ref (4) states the best limit value of A(n)
turns out to be 1. Thus, there is no such constant. Later, Carl Friedrich Gauss examined
the numerical evidence and concluded that the limit might be lower.

The purpose of the following exercise is to show, once again, that Gauss was more of an
intellect than most of his contemporaries, and acceded that the limit might be lower but
did not specify, however, that the limit would be 1. As it turns out the limit is lower than
1.08366 but not 1, and from all my previous work the value should have been predictable
as will now be shown:

Re-arranging the equation at the top of this page to:

lim A(n)  lim(ln(n)  ) for the PNT (1.11)
n  n   ( n)
k 2 n
lim A(n)  lim(  ) for the RH (1.12)
n  n  2 ln(2)  (n)

And substituting the appropriate values from Table (2) on page 11 for each of the
columns in both the below Tables (5 and 6), including the values determined by Helge
von Koch in 1901 (Ref (4)):

 (n)  1,925,320,391, 606,818, 006, 727

 51.939 for both the PNT and RH.
 ( n)

ln(n)  52.959 for the PNT.

k 2
And for equivalent of the ln(n), i.e.,   52.122 for the RH.
2 ln(2)

Table (5) - Values for the PNT

k n  102 k ln(n) n n A(n)

(ln(n)  )
 ( n)  ( n)

1 102 4.605 4.000 0.605 0.605

2 104 9.210 8.137 1.073 1.073
3 106 13.816 12.739 1.077 1.077
4 108 18.421 17.357 1.064 1.064
5 1010 23.026 21.975 1.051 1.051
6 1012 27.631 26.590 1.041 1.041
7 1014 32.236 31.202 1.034 1.034

11.5 1023 52.959 51.939 1.02005 1.02005

Table (6) – Values for the RH

k n  102 k k 2 n k 2 n
( ) (  ) A( n)
2 ln(2)  ( n) 2 ln(2)  (n)

1 102 4.532 4.000 0.532 0.532

2 104 9.065 8.137 0.928 0.928
3 106 13.597 12.739 0.858 0.858
4 108 18.129 17.357 0.772 0.772
5 1010 22.662 21.975 0.687 0.687
6 1012 27.194 26.590 0.604 0.604
7 1014 31.727 31.202 0.525 0.525

11.5 1023 52.122 51.939 0.183 0.183

The last entry in both tables (5 and 6) should have been obtained at lim
n 
A(n) instead of
1023 which is clearly an impossible quest. Even so, using the Helge von Koch data (~
1.02005 from the table (5) is sufficient to show Legendre’s constant (~1.08366…) is too
large. Gauss agreed that Legendre’s constant might be lower.

Ref (4) states that the best limit for A(n) is 1 and there is no such constant existent as
claimed by Legendre. From the research I have performed, I agree the value of
Legendre’s constant is too large, but it does exist and it is not equal to 1 for the PNT.

I plotted the values in the last column of Tables (5 and 6) above against the k values and
the result was surprising. Each trace increases from k = 1, both breaking to a downward
slope at exactly 2, but not with the same decreasing slope. The RH plot slope decreases
rapidly to a value of 0.183 as k values increase to infinity. This indicates that the
k 2 n
( )( ) )
2 ln(2)  (n)

between the RH value and the ratio of the number n divided by the actual number of
primes contained in n is zero at infinity, and this implies the RH value is 1 at
infinity which is consistent with Chebyshev’s Conjecture. On the other hand, the
difference between the ln(n) and Gauss’ ratio of the number n to the number of primes @
n appears to remain at a near constant value. It is very suggestive that the PNT plot is
approaching the value which I named previously as Martin’s Ratio = 1.016064488. This
is indeed less than Legendre’s Constant but still not equal to 1. Table (3) clearly shows a
tendency for this to occur.

From Fig. (13) and information contained in Tables (2), (3), (5) and (6) developed from
various referenced sources, it can be concluded that the PNT appears to be approaching
the value defined as Martin’s Ratio = 1.016064488 vice Legendre’s Constant 1.08366 and
the RH equivalent value appears to be approaching 0 asymptotically as k (and n)
approach infinity; both satisfy Chebyshev’s Conjecture. The relationship of the RH to
the PNT will be illustrated in this final summary.

From Ref (4), the largest values obtainable for  (n) =1,925,320,391,606,818,006,727 for
n = 1023 . Since I have defined n = 102k , k = 11.5 and the values from Table (5) that
should be substituted in equation (1.11) are:

lim A(n)   52.959  51.939  1.02005

k 

and in equation (1.12) from Table (6):

lim A(n)   52.122  51.939  0.183

k 

Table (5) already shows Legendre’s Constant =1.08366 is too large and by extrapolating
the data in Table (6) and Fig.(13), the value of n will probably be large since the approach
to 0 on the abscissa is asymptotic. Nonetheless, the Fig.(13) blue trace is approaching
zero, indicating no error between the calculated and actual number of zeros, thus assuring
that Chebyshev’s Conjecture is approaching 1 for the RH.

The red trace of Fig.(13) and Table (5) stabilizes at a value slightly >1 and it is probable
that it is approaching Martin’s Ratio for the PNT, then:

 (n) (2k ln(10))

 1.016064488 , and as shown previously, dividing

both sides of this equation by Martin’s Ratio confirm the Chebyshev Conjecture for the
RH, or:

 (n) 2k ln(10)  (n)  k   2 

     1
n 1.016064488 n  2   ln(2) 

This completes the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, verifying that it is indeed true.

Mack L. Martin PE (State of Ohio)

345 Gray Road
Melbourne, FL 32904