Grave Concerns On Riemann Hypothesis - Prime Numbers

ABSTRACT: There are now many theorems relating to prime numbers that assume the truth of the Riemann Hypothesis (RH). They would all crash, if the RH is based on false hypothesis, which in turn, RH does not exist to be true.
This paper demonstrates a major technical error in the Euler product formula (known as the Golden Key) for the Riemann zeta function, disproving Leonhard Euler's prime number representation.
That sparks, grave concerns on Riemann Hypothesis.

Download this Paper:-
http://www.4shared.com/document/RNgdWnsw/Grave_Concerns_on_Riemann_Hypo.html

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GNHNGP8E

CONCLUSION: In accordance with above findings, it is obvious that Riemann zeta-function is based on false hypothesis to represent Prime numbers. Therefore, it is impossible to justify proof or disproof on Riemann Hypothesis, where there is no foundation to base on.

NOTE: The author humbly requests Scientific Advisory Board of Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) to openly consider this paper as a factual and a valid answer to Riemann Hypothesis - Millennium Prize Problem, instead of holding into wishful thinking.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Riemann hypothesis
• Zeta function
• Euler Product
• Golden Key
• Prime Numbers
• Millennium Prize Problem
• Mathematics
• Number Theory
• Leonhard Euler
• Sri Lanka
• Lakshan Bandara

[contekkst]

I'm having trouble following the details, can you help me understand where the term

1/(2^s (m-1)^s-1^s)

in (D1a) comes from?

Say s=3, then the denominators in (D1) are all perfect cubes, as is 2^s(m-1)^s, so that 2^s(m-1)^s-1^s is necessarily not a perfect cube. Am I just looking at it wrong?

[BuddhistmeansWisdom]

@contekkst Yep & many tks. Denominators of that portion of the series should be corrected as: 2^s(m-2)^s , (2m-3)^s , 2^s(m-1)^s , (2m-1)^s , 2^s(m)^s

No one in history noticed that there was an error in Euler product, and capitalized on it. Work it out on paper and see, if Euler product is perfect as historically expected. It would be a time saver for many, who work on functions using Euler product as a foundation.



[fonsidream]

@contekkst You drag at a simple metaphor, where you are not matured to understand, and panic seeing a word ‘function’ as crocodiles in a tea cup. Grow up and free your soul!

When someone points at a star, it would be wise for you to look at the star, not his middle finger.

Concentrate from 3.1 Analyze Error - 2:04

The calculation deliberately and continuously ignores portions, which leads to an error in Euler product. Therefore, Zeta Function doesn’t accurately represent Prime Numbers.

[contekkst]

@fonsidream Let me try once more to be clear: F(X)=1+2+... isn't a typo, to my estimation, but is an undefined expression. It IS directly analogous to (1-1)+(1-1)+..., but you needn't care for my analogy; it is still an undefined expression. How is it to be interpreted? or isn't that relevant at all?

[fonsidream]

@contekkst Mathematics doesn't operate under metaphors is another straw man argument. Keep on burning straw men. Don't care!

Do you find a hypothesis in this paper? Bull Shit

You cannot speak for all mathematicians. Who do you think you are? Piss off

[fonsidream]

@contekkst Which cult are you from, not to question your beliefs? Go memorize what you learnt from nanny. He who questions well, learns well!

Your judgment of ignorance depends on what you are, not who you are.

Your assumption 0=(1-1)+(1-1)+...=1+(-1+1)+(-1­­­+1)+...=1 speaks for your credentials. A straw man argument is just an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, and that is not constructive.

Contribute with knowledge, if you are with good intent..

[fonsidream]

@contekkst I see where you are comming from.

[contekkst]

@fonsidream no, I found 1+2+3+..., and that sum is as meaningless as (1-1)+(1-1)+..., and just as amenable to crooked manipulation to arrive at contradictions. By contrast, the zeta function is only defined for Re(z)<=1 by analytic continuation, since, for example, the harmonic series diverges. And I'm not bringing my credentials into this, they are not relevant. I know enough to see your "metaphor" is derived from ignorance.

[contekkst]

your indian circus music soundtrack really sucks too.

[contekkst]

@fonsidream it's not really a game you're prepared to play, obviously. Mathematics doesn't operate under metaphors and it isn't a field that you can retard by demanding a response to an ill-formed hypothesis, from any mathematician who calls BS on your "paper". That's what "don't waste people's time" means. btw, I'm losing my 'good intent'