Having problems with message search?
Hi Jeff,
If you read these it may help.
This path is quite different to the one you are following but it
does not require using complex numbers. Note the attached part of this article,
that proving the Mobius Function has the required rate of growth is equivalent
to proving the Riemann Hypothesis.
Greg.
From: UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Cook
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 7:46 AM
To: UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [UnsolvedProblems] Jeff Cook's RH proof...
Greg,
You provide the equivalence to the Mobius function's zeros,
which have nothing to do with the Riemann Zeta Function non-trivial
zeros. The RH suggests that all the non-trivial zeros of the Zeta
Function have a real part 1/2. You are not dealing with the Riemann Zeta
Function in your paper...just the Zeta Function for Real numbers
strictly. There are no non-trivial zeros involving strictly Real
numbers. They are all complex.
Perhaps I am missing something?
Jeff
Greg Orme <grego@...> wrote:
My proof is about an equivalent formulation of the Riemann Hypothesis, but very different to yours.
From: UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey N Cook
Sent: Thursday, 31 May 2007 8:01 AM
To: UnsolvedProblems@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UnsolvedProblems] Jeff Cook's RH proof...All,
I just thought I'd start a post to offer any explanations on my proof
which is currently being presented on the Unsolved Problems website.
There are a number of highly qualified mathematicians from around the
world with there hands on this paper. The comments I have received
were vari ed...
"Fascinating..."
to...
"...[does] not fit the standard framework of mathematics."
I would like to comment on the latter. The mathematics I present in
this paper are not extreme stretches from conventional wisdom. I
simply expanded on already known rules with new findings. There is
no break from standard mathematics.
What this paper does is deal with every known aspect of the Riemann
Hypothesis and covers each point carefully, though quickly. It may
be hard for most to follow everything...even the especially
mathematically inclined. However, I would be happy to explain each
equation and point to the paper with anyone and/or explain the
hypothesis to amateurs to make sure everyone is on the same page.
Please feel free to ask any questions openly in this forum. Please
do not email me directly, as others may want to hear the arguments.
BTW, the other proof on the website is completely lacking and deals
very little with the actual hypothesis. This is not to belittle the
author's work. It is just to make things completely clear what the
real issues with this problem indeed are and how I have discovered
quite new items.
Cheers,
Jeff Cook
Need a vacation? Get
great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
Offline 
Send Email