100%(2)100% found this document useful (2 votes)

1K views39 pagesProposed solution to The Riemann Hypothesis.

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Proposed solution to The Riemann Hypothesis.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

100%(2)100% found this document useful (2 votes)

1K views39 pagesProposed solution to The Riemann Hypothesis.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

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.

(July 10, 2007)

1

THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS

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,

1

and all the zeros of the function would lie on the “critical line” at x = . The function,

2

first introduced:

∞

ζ ( s ) = ∑ n− s

n =1

(1.1)

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

developed:

−1

∞

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

1

or more specifically, for, s = + it . Since the notation for complex numbers used by

2

engineers and scientists is z = x + iy , from hereon the complex number used to determine

1

the zeros will be noted as z = + it which will not cause any difficulty. The analytic

2

continuation of the Riemann zeta function will then be:

( −1)

∞ n −1

1

ζ ( z) =

1 − 21− z

∑

n =1 nz

(1.3)

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

RH.

2

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

1

ζ ( z) = 1− z ∑

1 − 2 n=1 n z

(1.3) repeated.

1

….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

1

values of k inputted into z = + it , where t was computed with the algorithm

2

k

t = ⋅ ( 9.064720283654 ) , the M-Component evaluated to 0.414; when even numbers

2

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

2π

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

1

be used is x = , the M-Component can be put into a form that is dependent only on the

2

imaginary part t substituted into the M-Component for z in:

3

1

M=

2 (1.4)

1− it

2

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

t=

k M 2 ln ( 2 )

0

( 2 +1 ) 0

1

( 2 − 1) 4.53236014

2

( 2 + 1) 9.06472028

3

( 2 − 1) 13.59708043

4

( 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.

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

4

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.

1

zt t.i Complex number entry in terms of t

2

1

M M-Component and mirror image (blue)

1 z

1 2

1.5

0.5

Im M

t

t

0.5

1.5

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

5

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)

6

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:

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

Theorem.

7

All period cycle values were computed by multiplying by the k values as previously

illustrated:

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.

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.

8

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

Where:

(n) is the number of primes up to the number n. (n) is unrelated to

the constant 3.14159.

Carl Friedrich Gauss, the prince of mathematicians, and Legendre among others, were

n

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

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

(1.5)

9

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)

and,

ln( n) 2k ln(10) (1.9)

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)

Then:

PNT

Ratio 1.016064488 (1.10)

RH

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).

10

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

11

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

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

later.

12

VII Principle of Excess of Nines.

1

Since the value of s in equation (1.3) depends on the complex number s i t

2

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,

13

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)

14

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

17143.8218

occurs at 1861.367 instead of 1891.2689 where it occurs for the RH,

2 2 ln(10)

15

1891.2689

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

1.016064488

Lehmer events.

2

1891.2689 17143.8218

ln(2)

Figure (6)

16

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

2

Phenomenon” (which it isn’t) at t Cycle 17143.8218 , the precise value as in

ln(2)

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.

17

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)

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

PNT

Martin’s Ratio 1.016064488

RH

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”,

n

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.

18

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

Nines.”

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

“sanity check”. .

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.

19

X References:

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

York.

Van Nostrand Company, Inc.

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

Norton & Company.

(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.

(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).

Mathematics” Farrar, Straus and Giroux / New York.

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

Publishers)

(15) “Analytic Number Theory: The Prime Number Theorem”, Britannica CD, Version

99 C 1994-1998.

20

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.

2

previously. Recall the constant 9.06472028 will increase by a value of 1 when

ln(2)

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):

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

21

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

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.

22

23

2

1891.2689 17143.8218

ln(2)

24

22

3783.39 34295.372

3783.39 34295.372

ln(2)

ln(2)

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:

25

26

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.

(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:

27

Comparison of some pertinent values and parameters of RH and PNT

RH PNT

k n 102 k k

Cycle

2 tb tm te tb tm te

1 10 2 4.532 4.605

Table (4)

28

(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

n

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).

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

29

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:

1892

13400000 1478258.52 (rounded to 1478260).

17150.4508

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 atCycle = 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.

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

(www.riemannsolved.com)

30

31

32

33

XII Appendix (B)

In Ref (4), Adrien-Marie Legendre’s conjecture that the prime counting function:

n

( n)

ln(n) A(n)

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:

n

lim A(n) lim(ln(n) ) for the PNT (1.11)

n n ( n)

and

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=1023

and

n

51.939 for both the PNT and RH.

( n)

k 2

And for equivalent of the ln(n), i.e., 52.122 for the RH.

2 ln(2)

34

Table (5) - Values for the PNT

(ln(n) )

( n) ( n)

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

35

k n 102 k k 2 n k 2 n

( ) ( ) A( n)

2 ln(2) ( n) 2 ln(2) (n)

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

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

difference:

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.

36

37

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:

k

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.

38

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:

1.016064488 , and as shown previously, dividing

n

both sides of this equation by Martin’s Ratio confirm the Chebyshev Conjecture for the

RH, or:

1

n 1.016064488 n 2 ln(2)

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

345 Gray Road

Melbourne, FL 32904

E-mail: macklmartin@bellsouth.net

39

Skip section### Trending

- Officer Off LimitsTessa Bailey
- The Duke's Shotgun WeddingStacy Reid
- TangledEmma Chase
- It's Not Summer Without YouJenny Han
- American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.s. Military HistoryChris Kyle
- Manifest Your DestinyWayne W. Dyer
- Boundaries: When to Say Yes, How to Say NoDr. Henry Cloud
- A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to School...Davide Cali
- Marvin Gets MAD!Joseph Theobald
- RadianceGrace Draven
- After Ever HappyAnna Todd
- Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?Bill Martin Jr.
- The Bell Jar: A NovelSylvia Plath
- Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of NikePhil Knight
- Until It Fades: A NovelK.A. Tucker
- Exploit Loophole 609 to Boost Your Credit Score and Remove All Negative Items From Your Credit ReportRobert Pemberton
- Spy School Secret ServiceStuart Gibbs
- The OneJohn Marrs
- The Extraordinary Life of Sam Hell: A NovelRobert Dugoni
- CaravalStephanie Garber
- The Devilish DukeMaddison Michaels
- The Jetsetters: A NovelAmanda Eyre Ward
- The Good Egg Presents: The Great Eggscape!Jory John
- Feels Like FallingKristy Woodson Harvey