A Possible Proof Of The Riemann Hypothesis

In this paper, I present my approach to the Riemann Hypothesis, which potentially provides elements for a proof of it, or even an actual proof. I start by simplifying the equality Eta(s)=0 (which is implied by the nullness of the continued Zeta(s)) by expressing |Eta(s)|^2=0 as Re(Eta(s))^2 + Im(Eta(s))^2 = 0, expressed with cosine and sine functions, then I use trigonometric identities to further break down the sum into a sum of squares purely relying on Re(s) and a double sum relying on both Re(s) and Im(s). Using the bounded nature of the cosine function, I reformulate the equality as a problem of quadratic equations, to get rid of the dependence on Im(s) as well as the oscillations it induces, I then consider Re(s) as a map a[n] = Re(s[n]) (n being the number of terms in Zeta(s) or Eta(s)), rather than a fixed value (since we deal with infinity), It has already been proved that for all the nontrivial zeros, their real part is in ]0,1[, So, I then use integrals and asymptotic analysis to observe three cases of asymptotic behaviours: Almost finished when a[n] converges to a real number in ]0,1/2[ when a[n] converges to a real number in ]1/2,1[ when a[n] converges to 1/2 (where we distinguish some more cases) Then I conclude that the only logically consistent case is when a[n] converges to 1/2. IMPORTANT NOTE: When I rigorously checked my last part with the infinite order of expansion in the 1/2 case, I figured out that the rate of convergence that I had figured many versions ago in my observations of the case of a fast convergence, was actually the right one. I shall write the calculation details in the following versions. I keep making things more explicit, so don't be surprised if I keep making new versions. I am still deploying tremendous efforts to correct sentences and expressions and little mistakes here and there, and to remove ambiguities. My goal is to get as accurate as possible, I still have some changes to make, I'm not far from the final version. As you can see, the amount of signs and calculations makes the careless mistakes really easy (I've corrected a good amount up to now).

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2024-12-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14536756
Primary Topic
Analytic Number Theory Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Possible Proof Of The Riemann Hypothesis

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Analytic Number Theory Research
article

A Possible Proof Of The Riemann Hypothesis

article en

Abstract

In this paper, I present my approach to the Riemann Hypothesis, which potentially provides elements for a proof of it, or even an actual proof. I start by simplifying the equality Eta(s)=0 (which is implied by the nullness of the continued Zeta(s)) by expressing |Eta(s)|^2=0 as Re(Eta(s))^2 + Im(Eta(s))^2 = 0, expressed with cosine and sine functions, then I use trigonometric identities to further break down the sum into a sum of squares purely relying on Re(s) and a double sum relying on both Re(s) and Im(s). Using the bounded nature of the cosine function, I reformulate the equality as a problem of quadratic equations, to get rid of the dependence on Im(s) as well as the oscillations it induces, I then consider Re(s) as a map a[n] = Re(s[n]) (n being the number of terms in Zeta(s) or Eta(s)), rather than a fixed value (since we deal with infinity), It has already been proved that for all the nontrivial zeros, their real part is in ]0,1[, So, I then use integrals and asymptotic analysis to observe three cases of asymptotic behaviours: Almost finished when a[n] converges to a real number in ]0,1/2[ when a[n] converges to a real number in ]1/2,1[ when a[n] converges to 1/2 (where we distinguish some more cases) Then I conclude that the only logically consistent case is when a[n] converges to 1/2. IMPORTANT NOTE: When I rigorously checked my last part with the infinite order of expansion in the 1/2 case, I figured out that the rate of convergence that I had figured many versions ago in my observations of the case of a fast convergence, was actually the right one. I shall write the calculation details in the following versions. I keep making things more explicit, so don't be surprised if I keep making new versions. I am still deploying tremendous efforts to correct sentences and expressions and little mistakes here and there, and to remove ambiguities. My goal is to get as accurate as possible, I still have some changes to make, I'm not far from the final version. As you can see, the amount of signs and calculations makes the careless mistakes really easy (I've corrected a good amount up to now).

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Openalex Percentile: Top 40%
Analytic Number Theory Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.