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: 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. NOTE: I made corrections again, I removed the part where I made the order of the Taylor approximation tend to infinity; that actually made no sense because we're dealing with diverging infinite sums. Instead, I worked with asymptotic expansions using Taylor approximations of any order p, p being a natural number, and proved the properties for all p. I keep making corrections (and thus new versions) as I spot errors, ambiguous expressions and incomplete statements. I'm not far from the final version (I hope).