pull down to refresh
To the latter question, yes, that would mean the hypothesis is wrong (assuming it's described accurately in the post).
As to how to logically prove a theorem, there are a bunch of possible approaches. The two easiest to describe are direct proof and proof by contradiction:
- A direct proof would be to take the rules describing this function and show that all solutions must take the form of a prime number.
- In a proof by contradiction, you assume there is a non-prime solution and show that such a solution leads to a logical contradiction.
Direct proofs are often more difficult than proofs by contradiction, at least in my experience.
unfortunately your oversimplification is misleading to the point of being incorrect.
the riemann zeta function isn't about any single prime, or whether any single arbitrary number is or is not prime. it's about the distribution of all the primes, considered as a single mathematical spectrum.
What do you mean exactly when you say this
it's about the distribution of all the primes, considered as a single mathematical spectrum.
@BlokchainB quoted @adlai
What do you mean exactly when you say thisit's about the distribution of all the primes, considered as a single mathematical spectrum.
before I convince myself that composing a generic response isn't a complete waste of time; do you have any rigorous familiarity with any mathematics-adjacent disciplines? music is the best candidate, although for all I know you're some STEM graduate simply looking for mathematical intuition that your curriculum never provided... and honestly I don't get anything useful from either "God Family Bitcoin" nor the remainder of your SN bio, because it seems futile to spend too much more time geeking out about my audience than actually typing the response.
so while "I built my own house using compass and straightedge but never measured even once before cutting" is useful information, I'm hoping for something closer to "I actually dropped out of music school after three semesters", or at least, "I worked lighting for a theatre for a few months as a teenager".
otherwise, I'm probably going to quote either Plato's Academy or Dante's Inferno.
I know you're some STEM graduate simply looking for mathematical intuition that your curriculum never provided
Bingo!
thanks; now I have twice as many loseable drafts to think about... let's categorise most coarsely: requests for generally understandable metaphors can be "shower thoughts", while the can is reserved for thinking about heavy metaphors for specific domains that are supposed to make a splash.
But how do we show that? and let’s say we do generate a non-prime that will mean Riemann’s hypothesis is wrong?