0 views

Uploaded by Jordan Blevins

riemann zeta

riemann zeta

© All Rights Reserved

- HW3 Population Growth Solution
- Past Manual
- SUG243 - Cartography - Proportional Symbol
- Yokogawa FX1000
- lesson 11 6 exponential equations and change of base
- Furman 2008 Exam
- Half Life Equations
- 4ACh05(Exponential and Logarithmic Functions)
- fhffffh
- Revision for Final Examination 2015-2016
- Quadratic Equations
- Logarithmic Amplifier
- Algebra
- Combinatorics12
- b 5 Exponential and Logarithmic Functions
- Logarithms 01
- Ch4 Logs Ib Practice
- On-line Portfolio Selection Using Multiplicative Updates
- unit abstract
- Simon y blume 4-5

You are on page 1of 8

Paul Garrett garrett@math.umn.edu http://www.math.umn.edu/egarrett/

[This document is http://www.math.umn.edu/˜garrett/m/mfms/notes 2015-16/01 Euler and zeta.pdf]

1. Euler and zeta

2. Euler product expansion of sin x

3. Quantitative infinitude of primes

4. Proof of Euler product

5. Appendix: product expansion of sin x

Infinite sums that telescope can be understood in simpler terms. The archetype is

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

+ + + ... = − + − + − + ... = 1

1·2 2·3 3·4 1 2 2 3 3 4

Other subtler examples analyze-able via trigonometric functions give more interesting answers, but these are

still elementary, the archetype being [1]

x x3 Z x

1 1 1 x5 dt π

− − + ... = − + − ... = = arctan 1 =

1 3 5 1 3 5 x=1 1 + t 2

x=1 4

0

As late as 1735, no one knew how to express in simpler terms

1 1 1 1 1

+ 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + ...

12 2 3 4 5

This was the Basel problem, after the town in Switzerland home to the Bernoullis, collectively a dominant

force in European mathematics at the time.

L. Euler solved the problem, winning him useful notoriety at an early age, but more notably introducing

larger ideas, as follows.

Given non-zero numbers a1 , . . . , an , a polynomial with constant term 1 having these numbers as roots is

x x x 1 1 1 1 1 xn

1− 1− ... 1− = 1 − ( . . . + )x + ( + + + . . .)x2 + . . . + (−1)n

a1 a2 an a1 an a1 a2 a1 a3 a2 a3 a1 . . . an

Imagine that sinπxπx has an analogous product expansion, in terms of its zeros at ±1, ±2, ±3, . . ., up to a

normalizing constant needing determination: using the power series expansion of sin x,

(πx)3 ∞

(πx) − + ... sin πx Y x2 X 1

3!

= = C· 1 − 2 = C · x − x3 2

+ ...

πx πx n=1

n n

n

Assuming this works, equating constant terms gives C = 1, and equating coefficients of x2 gives

π2 X 1

=

6 n2

P 1

Slightly messier manipulations yield all values n2k

.

Euler did not manage to prove that the sine function had such a product expansion for some years.

Nevertheless, just this heuristic, without the eventual proof, was what won him considerable notoriety,

in part because it suggested an underlying mechanism. Further, everyone believed the heuristic because, the

numerical plausibility was easy to check, once observed.

[1] There is some delicacy about convergence, but this is secondary.

1

Paul Garrett: 01 Euler and ζ(s) (September 14, 2015)

In effect, the Basel problem was about explaining the values ζ(2), ζ(4), . . ., of the simplest zeta function

∞

X 1

ζ(s) = s

(real s?, complex s?)

n=1

n

Euler made another striking observation about ζ(s): it has an Euler product factorization/expansion, coming

from unique factorization in Z:

X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

= + s + s + s + s + s + s + s + s + s + s + s + ......

n

ns 1s 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

s

=+ s + s + 2s + s + s s + s + 3s + 2s + s s + s + 2s s + . . .

1 2 3 2 5 2 ·3 7 2 3 2 ·5 11 2 ·3

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y 1

= 1 + s + 2s + 3s + . . . 1 + s + 2s + 3s + . . . 1 + s + 2s + 3s + . . . . . . =

2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 1

primes p 1−

ps

from factoring uniquely into prime powers and massively regrouping in terms of geometric series for each

prime:

1 1 1 1

1 + s + 2s + 3s + . . . =

p p p 1

1− s

p

In short,

∞

X 1 Y 1

ζ(s) = =

n s 1

n=1 primes p 1−

ps

That is, we have an expression involving just primes equated to an expression not overtly involving primes,

suggesting the relevance of the zeta function to prime numbers. Whether or not we care greatly about prime

numbers, the connection between primes and behavior of ζ(s) is striking.

The ancient Greek mathematicians proved the infinitude of primes qualitatively, but experimentation quickly

suggests that the estimates on asymptotic density arising from that classical argument are laughably bad.

The first serious qualitative result about primes was Euler’s, using the Euler product expansion of ζ(s),

proving

X 1

= ∞

p

all primes p

R∞

Comparison with 1

x−s dx for real s > 1 proves that ζ(s) → +∞ as s → 1+ :

Z ∞

1

= x−s dx ≤ ζ(s) (for real s > 1)

s−1 1

X 1 X 1 1 1

log ζ(s) = − log 1 − = + + + . . .

p

ps p

ps 2p2s 3p3s

2

Paul Garrett: 01 Euler and ζ(s) (September 14, 2015)

The terms after the initial 1/ps do not contribute to any blow-up as s → 1+ , by crudely estimating primes

by positive integers:

XX 1 XX 1 X 1 Z ∞ dx

≤ ≤

p

`p`s `n`s ` 1 x`s

`≥2 n≥2 `≥2 `≥2

X1 1 X1 1

= · ≤ · < ∞ (uniformly for s ≥ 1)

` `s − 1 ` `−1

`≥2 `≥2

1 X 1

log < log ζ(s) ≤ C + (for s > 1)

s−1 p

ps

Thus, the blow-up of log ζ(s) as s → 1+ forces the divergence [2] of p 1/p.

P

This argument by itself did not attempt quantify how fast p<x p1 blows up as a function of x → ∞, although

P

a similar idea can make progress there.

A related question of at least whimsical interest is about the prime-counting function [3]

X

π(x) = 1

p0 <x

That is, the weights in the counting are not 1/ps , not 1/p, but just 1. About 160 years after Euler’s first

work on zeta, in 1896 Hadamard and de la Vallée-Poussin (independently) proved

x

π(x) ∼ (as x → +∞)

log x

meaning that π(x)/ x/ log x → 1 as x → +∞. The question of refining the error term in this asymptotic

is very much open currently.

Riemann’s 1859 paper showed that the connection between prime numbers and the zeta function is far deeper

than the above discussion suggests.

Although the heuristic may be clear, we could be concerned about convergence of the infinite product of

these geometric series to the sum expression for ζ(s), in Re (s) > 1. All the worse if the Euler product seems

intuitive, it is surprisingly non-trivial to carry out a detailed verification of the Euler factorization.

Ideas about convergence were different in 1750 than now. It is not accurate to glibly claim that the Cauchy-

Weierstraß ε − δ viewpoint gives the only possible correct notion of convergence, since A. Robinson’s 1966

non-standard analysis offers a rigorous modernization of Leibniz’, Euler’s, and others’ use of infinitesimals

and unlimited natural numbers to reach similar goals. [4] Thus, although an ε − δ discussion is alien to

Euler’s viewpoint, it is more familiar to contemporary readers, and we conduct the discussion in such terms.

[2] For real s > 1, certainly P p−s ≤ P 1/p, so the blow-up of the left-hand side as s → 1+ implies divergence of

p p

the right.

[3] Slightly unfortunate notation π(x), but it is traditional.

[4] A. Robinson’s Non-standard Analysis, North-Holland, 1966 was epoch-making, and really did justify some of the

profoundly intuitive ideas in L. Euler’s Introductio in Analysin Infinitorum, Opera Omnia, Tomi Primi, Lausanne,

3

Paul Garrett: 01 Euler and ζ(s) (September 14, 2015)

[4.1] The main issue One central point is the discrepancy between finite products of finite geometric

series involving primes, and finite sums of natural numbers. For example, for T > 1, because every positive

integer n < T is a product of prime powers pm < T in a unique manner,

Y X 1 X 1 X 1

− <

pms ns |ns |

prime p<T m : pm <T n<T n≥T

since the finitely-many leftovers from the product produce integers n ≥ T at most once each. The latter

sum goes to 0 as T → ∞, for fixed Re (s) > 1, by comparison with an integral.

The finite sums n<T 1/ns are the usualP

P

partial sums of the infinite sum, and (simple) convergence is the

assertion that this sequence converges to n 1/ns .

Thus, this already proves that

Y X 1 X 1

lim =

T →∞ pms ns

prime p<T m : pm <T n≥1

[4.2] Limits of varying products In contrast, the auxiliary question about infinite products is more

complicated. We have products whose factors themselves vary: we would like to prove that because

1 1 1 1

1+ + 2s + . . . + ms −→ (for Re (s) > 1)

ps p p 1

1−

ps

Y X 1 Y 1

−→ (for Re (s) > 1)

pms 1

p<T m:pm <T p 1−

ps

where the infinite product on the right is the limit of its finite partial products. That the individual factors

on the left approach the individual factors on the right is not necessary (for fixed s), and in any case is not

sufficient.

Taking logarithms is convenient, since error estimates on sums is easier than error estimates on products.

That is, we claim that

Y X 1 Y 1

log −→ log (for Re (s) > 1)

pms 1

p<T m:pm <T p 1−

ps

The infinite product on the right is easily verified to converge to a non-zero limit, so continuity of log away

from 0 allows us to move the logarithm inside the infinite product. Moving log inside a finite product is not

an issue. Thus, it suffices to prove that

X X 1 X 1

log −→ log (for Re (s) > 1)

pms 1

p<T m:pm <T p 1−

ps

1748. E. Nelson’s reformulation Internal set theory, a new approach to NSA, Bull. AMS 83 (1977), 1165-1198,

significantly improved the usability of these ideas. A. Robert’s Non-standard Analysis, Dover, 2003 (original French

version 1985, Presses polytechniques romandes, Lausanne) is a very clear exposition of non-standard analysis in

Nelson’s modified form.

4

Paul Garrett: 01 Euler and ζ(s) (September 14, 2015)

[4.2.1] Claim: For fixed 0 < δ < 1, there is a constant C > 0 such that, for any |x| < δ and |y| < δ,

log(1 + x) − log(1 + y) < C · |x − y|

Now the approximations of the factors by geometric series can be used: for fixed p, letting σ = Re (s) > 1,

X 1 1 X 1 1 1

− ≤ ≤ σ ·

pms 1 − p1s pmσ T 1 − 2−σ

m:pm <T m:pm ≥T

X 1 1 1 1

log − log 1 ≤ C · T σ · 1 − 2−σ

pms 1 − ps

m:pm <T

and then X X 1 1 1 X 1 1 1

log − log 1 < −σ

≤ σ−1 ·

pms 1 − ps T σ 1 − 2 T 1 − 2−σ

p<T m:pm <T p<T

X 1 X 1

log − log < ε

1 1

p<T 1− p 1− s

ps p

Then

X X 1 X 1

X X 1 X 1

log − log ≤ log − log + ε

pms 1

pms 1

p<T m:pm <T p 1− s p<T m:pm <T p<T 1− s

p p

C 1

< · +ε

1 − 2σ T σ−1

Since σ > 1, this can be made small by increasing T . ///

[4.2.2] Remark: Since everything turned out nicely, one might think that the above discussion made too

much of a fuss about small issues. Indeed, nothing counter-intuitive transpired. However, at the least, it is

worthwhile to understand exactly what the assertion of an Euler product factorization entails, in terms of

finite expressions.

Q∞

[4.3] Discussion One issue is a sensible meaning for convergence of an infinite product i=1 ai . Our

general understanding of infinite processes rests on essentially a single notion, that of taking a limit of finite

subprocesses. An ordering may P∞be further specified, to distinguish a special class of finite subprocesses.

For example, an infinite sum i=1 ai has value the limit, if that limit exists, of the special finite subsums

PN

sN = i=1 ai . We could make the stronger requirement of convergence of the net [5] of all finite subsums,

indexed by the directed poset of all finite subsets of {1, 2, . . .}. Convergence of such a more complicated net

[5] A net is a useful generalization of sequence: while a sequence is a set indexed by the ordered set {1, 2, . . .}, a

net is a set indexed by a directed poset. The word poset is a common abbreviation for partially ordered set, which

is a set with a partial order x < y. A partial order is transitive, meaning that x < y and y < z implies x < z, and

anti-symmetric, meaning that x 6< x. The directed condition on a poset S is that, given x, y ∈ S, there is z ∈ S with

both x < z and y < z.

5

Paul Garrett: 01 Euler and ζ(s) (September 14, 2015)

would mean that, given ε > 0, there is a finite subset F ⊂ {1, 2, . . .} such that, for any finite subsets X, Y

of {1, 2, . . .} containing F , X X

ai − ai < ε

i∈X i∈Y

One can prove that this stronger notion of convergence is equivalent to absolute convergence. For subsequent

manipulations of infinite sums, usually we want and need absolute convergence.

Q∞

Similarly, for infinite products i=1 ai , the weakest reasonable convergence requirement is convergence of the

QN

sequence of finite sub-products i=1 ai . Absolute convergence is equivalent to the stronger requirement of

convergence of net of all finite sub-products. The stronger requirement is necessary to legitimize non-trivial

subsequent manipulations.

The behavior of 0 in multiplication has an effect on infinite products with no counterpart in infinite sums,

namely, that a single factor of 0 makes the whole product 0, regardless of the behavior of other factors. This

might seem silly or undesirable, so some sources declare this behavior unacceptable, or given an impression

of compromise by allowing only finitely-many factors of 0.

A more serious issue is convergence to 0. For example, the sequence of finite partial products

Y 1

pT = 1−

n

n≤T

converges to 0. Thus, it makes sense to say that the infinite product converges to 0. However, many sources

disallow this, as part of their definition. On the face of it, there is no reason to object to convergence to 0,

since it certainly fits with general principles about infinite processes being limits of finite sub-processes.

However, in the present situation as well as in many other applications, one immediately takes a logarithm

of a product. Thus, we want infinite products which converge in a sense that makes the infinite sum of

logarithms converge. The discrepancy between this goal and the general principles about infinite processes

being limits of finite sub-processes is genuine, since logarithm is not continuous at 0. It would be unreasonable

to expect maps such as log to preserve limits at points where they are not continuous.

For example, taking logarithms in the product displayed above,

X 1 X 1 1 1 X1

log 1 − = − + 2 + 3 + ... ≤ − = −∞

n

n n

n 2n 3n n

n

That is, as expected, convergence of an infinite product to 0 becomes divergence to −∞ under logarithm.

A detail: logarithms of infinite products of complex numbers require conventions to avoid meaningless

divergence due to ambiguities in the imaginary part of logarithms. This issue is secondary, so we ignore it

in the present discussion.

Q

In any context in which logarithms of productsPmatter, we might define convergence of a product j aj of

positive reals aj to be convergence of the sum j log aj , and expect to prove

P Q

Q sum log aj converges, then

j j aj converges,

in the sense that the sequence of partial products pN = a

j≤N j converges. ///

x2 x3

− log(1 − x) = x + + + ... (for |x| < 1)

2 3

we have approximations that simplify sums of logarithms. For example, for δ > 0, there are A, B > 0 such

that

Ax < − log(1 − x) < Bx (for |x| < 1 − δ, constants A, B depending on δ > 0)

6

Paul Garrett: 01 Euler and ζ(s) (September 14, 2015)

Q

Thus, an infinite product n (1 + an ) with all the an ’s in the range |an | < 1 − δ has partial products with

logarithms satisfying

X Y X X

A an < log (1 + an ) = log(1 + an ) < B an (A, B depending on δ > 0)

n<N n<N n<N n<N

Thus, in this situation, convergence of the sum of logarithms log(1 + an ) is equivalent to convergence of the

sum of an . There are obvious variations.

Again, infinite products may converge to 0 in the sense that the sequence of partial subproducts converges

to 0, but the sequence of sums of logarithms of partial subproducts diverges to −∞. Equivalently, the

comparison of log(1 + x) and x fails as x → −1. Equivalently, log is not continuous at 0.

Euler did eventually prove the product expansion

Y x2

sin πx = πx · 1−

n2

n≥1

The question does not mention complex numbers at all, but the simplest verification of this product expansion

is a standard application of basic complex analysis, at the level of Liouville’s theorem and Laurent expansions

near poles, providing yet another powerful motivation for understanding basic complex analysis. [6]

π2

[5.1] Partial fraction expansion of sin2 πx

We claim that there is a partial fraction expansion

π2 X 1

2 =

sin πz (z − n)2

n∈Z

To see this, first note that both sides have double poles exactly at integers. The Laurent expansion of the

right-hand side near n ∈ Z begins

1

+ holomorphic

(z − n)2

The left-hand side is periodic, so it suffices to see the Laurent expansion near 0:

π2 π2 1 1 1 π2 z2 2 1

= 2 = · 2 = · 1 + + . . . = 2 + holomorphic

sin2 πz πz + (πz)3

+ ... z2 1 − π2 z2

+ ... z 2 3! z

3! 3!

This Laurent expansion matches that of the partial fraction expansion. Thus,

π2 X 1

f (z) = 2 −

sin πz (z − n)2

n∈Z

has no poles in C, so is entire. On the real line, after cancellation of poles, f continuous. The periodicity

f (z + 1) = f (z) is visible, so f is bounded on the real line. In fact, since f is bounded on any region

[6] Weierstraß and Hadamard product expansions apply to general entire functions, but with more overhead than

needed here.

7

Paul Garrett: 01 Euler and ζ(s) (September 14, 2015)

{x + iy : 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, |y| ≤ N }, the periodicity gives the boundedness of f (z) on every band |y| ≤ N

containing R.

Both parts of f (z) go to 0 as |y| → ∞. Thus, f is bounded and entire, so constant, by Liouville’s theorem.

Since f (z) → 0 as |y| → ∞, this constant is 0, giving the desired equality.

Next, regroup slightly, to improve convergence:

π2 1 X 1 1

2 = 2+ 2

+ 2

sin πz z (z − n) (z + n)

n≥1

The left-hand side is the derivative of −π cot πz, and with the improved convergence the right-hand side is

the obvious termwise derivative, so up to a constant C,

1 X 1 1

π cot πz = C + + +

z z−n z+n

n≥1

The identity

1 1 (z + n) + (z − n) 2z

+ = 2 2

= 2

z−n z+n z −n z − n2

certifies that convergence is uniform and absolute, and that the summands are odd functions of z. Everything

but the constant C is odd as a function of z, so C = 0. Thus,

1 X 1 1

π cot πz = + +

z z−n z+n

n≥1

Also, π cot πz is the logarithmic derivative of sin πz:

d (sin πz)0 π cos πz

log(sin πz) = = = π cot πz

dz sin πz sin πz

Thus,

d (sin πz)0 1 X 1 1

log(sin πz) = = + +

dz sin πz z z−n z+n

n≥1

d z − n1 1

log 1 − = =

dz n 1 − nz z−n

Thus, integrating, for some constant C,

X z z X z2

log(sin πz) = C + log z + log 1 − + log 1 − = C + log z + log 1 − 2

n n n

n≥1 n≥1

Exponentiating,

Y z2

sin πz = eC · z · 1−

n2

n≥1

Y z2

sin πz = πz · 1− 2

n

n≥1

- HW3 Population Growth SolutionUploaded byMiriam Kaufman
- Past ManualUploaded byDeyni Lorena
- SUG243 - Cartography - Proportional SymbolUploaded byMuhammad Ruzaini
- Yokogawa FX1000Uploaded byjuma1987
- lesson 11 6 exponential equations and change of baseUploaded byapi-233527181
- Furman 2008 ExamUploaded byBHAAJI0001
- Half Life EquationsUploaded bylord_genome
- 4ACh05(Exponential and Logarithmic Functions)Uploaded byapi-19856023
- fhffffhUploaded bysuar90
- Revision for Final Examination 2015-2016Uploaded byYamaneko Shin
- Quadratic EquationsUploaded byDhelia
- Logarithmic AmplifierUploaded byDan Golea
- AlgebraUploaded byKeen Fajutagana
- Combinatorics12Uploaded byJimmy Revilla
- b 5 Exponential and Logarithmic FunctionsUploaded byJonalyn Bautista-Canlas
- Logarithms 01Uploaded bysmruti sangita
- Ch4 Logs Ib PracticeUploaded byboostoberoi
- On-line Portfolio Selection Using Multiplicative UpdatesUploaded byRaghuveer Chandra
- unit abstractUploaded byapi-242219136
- Simon y blume 4-5Uploaded byErika Dìaz
- Math_4Uploaded byMaria Salve Obar Bobis
- 9650Guess paper 17-01-12Uploaded byNitin Kashyap
- 10.1.1.330.603.pdfUploaded bySteev Zamudio Reyes
- lec18.pdfUploaded bypankaj rangaree
- lec21Uploaded byraw.junk
- 141 SummaryUploaded bysplashup
- gen math exam.docxUploaded byJeffrey Chan
- Important Concepts and Formulas - LogarithmsUploaded byvenkat
- A Good Programer - Academic RecitationUploaded byLizbeth Hernandez
- LogarithmUploaded byKunalKaushik

- Lex Weigelt Et Al PSE 2010 Judo Throwing TechniqueUploaded byJordan Blevins
- “A New Approach to The Hard Problem of Consciousness꞉ A Quasicrystalline Language of ''Primitive Units of Consciousness'' in Quantized Spacetime” — Klee Irwin (2014)Uploaded byJordan Blevins
- Trees&GraphsUploaded byJordan Blevins
- “War, Clausewitz, And the Trinity” — Thomas Waldman (2009)Uploaded byJordan Blevins
- “The Riemann Hypothesis꞉ a Resource for the Afficianado & Virtuoso Alike (Review)” — Jeff Hooper (2013)Uploaded byJordan Blevins
- A Glossary of Sitting _ Starfish TherapiesUploaded byJordan Blevins
- “Natural Classification of Knots” — Alessandro Flammini & Andrzej Stasiak (2007)Uploaded byJordan Blevins
- “Mapping the Meaning of Preposition” — Joost ZwartsUploaded byJordan Blevins
- “Investigation on Spatial Relations in 3D GIS Based on NIV” — Min, D.; Chengming, L. (2001)Uploaded byJordan Blevins
- “RCC11꞉ A Finer Topological Representation for The Alignment of Regions in Sketch Maps” — Jan, S.; Schwering, A.; Schultz, C.; Chipofya, M. (2015)Uploaded byJordan Blevins
- Emmell, Amber_Euler & The Basel Problem.pdfUploaded byJordan Blevins
- “Zipf Law in The Popularity Distribution of Chess Openings” — Bernd Blasius & Ralf Tonjes (2009).pdfUploaded byJordan Blevins
- “Derived Positions” — Amal Hassan Mohammed IbrahimUploaded byJordan Blevins
- hof.geom.diamond.pdfUploaded byJordan Blevins
- Brains, Heart, And Body_ Laugh’s Theory on the Three Types of Fighting Gamers – ShoryukenUploaded byJordan Blevins
- Budapest-Issue-6-Final1.pdfUploaded byJordan Blevins
- David Scott’s Semiotics _ by Robin FullerUploaded byJordan Blevins
- NunchakuUploaded bychinesebox2010
- Gary's ThesisUploaded byJordan Blevins
- Judo _ Kim's Martial Arts and Fitness - Pittsburgh Judo, Taekwondo, Jiu-Jitsu, Aikido, Karate, BJJ, Self-DefenseUploaded byJordan Blevins
- 2013 03 NewsletterUploaded byJordan Blevins
- New Text DocumentUploaded byJordan Blevins

- 30021 Slides 2012dsfUploaded byAndrés Leyva
- RZFUploaded byari wiliam
- MathematicsUploaded byAdamjensen2027
- Modular Functions and Dirichlet Series in Number Theory (Apostol).pdfUploaded byAidan Holwerda
- gammaFunction.pdfUploaded byTeferi
- Zeta FunctionUploaded byDevendra Tiwari
- Trolling Euclid - An Irreverent Guide to Nine of Mathematics Most Important Problems (2016)Uploaded byПредраг Стељић
- Quantum Physicists Attack the Riemann HypothesisUploaded bySilvino González Morales
- 1305.2897v4Uploaded byShanna Aurora Pimentel
- Evaluation Multiple ZetaUploaded bylsunart
- Leonhard Euler and Some of His WorkUploaded byAnonymous zXVPi2Ply
- Number Theory in Function FieldsUploaded byDietethique
- [Beals R., Wong R.] Special Functions a GraduateUploaded bysoumalya481
- 7probUploaded bySerik Fell O Wacko
- FCM Zeta equation (Cambridge)Uploaded byucaptd3
- Cohomology of Arithmetic Groups, L-Functions and Automorphic - T. Venkatamarana.pdfUploaded byguillermo
- Jia C., Matsumoto K. - Analytic Number TheoryUploaded byJohnny
- Hawking, S. W. - Zeta Function Regularization of Path Integrals in Curved SpacetimeUploaded byjborbasj
- Vertex Operator Algebra and Zeta FunctionUploaded byx
- Zeta RiemannUploaded bySachin Pandey
- Complex AnalysisUploaded byMoisesRojo
- apologyriemanUploaded byMazilu Gianina
- Riemann Zeta Function and HistoryUploaded bybaustinjiu
- Riemann Method for Hyperbolic Equations.pdfUploaded byShaurya Seth
- An Introduction to the Theory of L-FunctionsUploaded byAVBP
- From_The_Zeros_of_the_Riemann_Zeta_Funct.pdfUploaded byAärõn Dê Łā CŕÜz
- A Course in Analytic Number Theory by Barry MazurUploaded bynogal8115
- Disproof of the Mertens Conjecture AM OdlyzkoUploaded byMak20v
- Intro Riemann HypothesisUploaded bythecatalan
- A. Karatsuba - The Riemann Zeta-Function.pdfUploaded bySebastos37