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). (Don't mind the date at the beginning of the paper, it was the date of my first versions and I forgot to update it).