Wanting to learn more about the Riemann hypothesis out of interest,

>>8589145
this looks like shit

to learn about the Riemann Hypothesis you need to learn linear algebra, then some real analysis, then some complex analysis. also some algebra, then some number theory.

if you don't want that then you don't really give a fuck about the riemann hypothesis

>>8589145
It's a very good pop-math book. Recommended!

>>8589145

Do not listen to this guy >>8589156 OP. His post is an exception to the rule of "fpbp", since his language tacitly admits that he has not actually read the book (this ///looks/// like shit), whereas I have. This guy is right >>8589179 .

Your pic related is a serviceable treatment of the Riemann hypothesis and its history for a general reader, which also doens't bog down too hard in "wow xD" pop-sci memery. Derbyshire is in fact pretty good mathematical writer for a general audience, and if you like this book, I would go a step further and recommend that you also try his /Unknown Quantity/, which is a history of algebra.

Nevertheless, it is true that the book is not a technical or properly mathematical one, which is why /sci/ users are automatically skeptical. For that, you'd want the Edwards dover book, which I don't recommend to you as it sounds to be out of your depth. This is where the fp starts to make sense - you need a foundation first. But reading your pic related is a perfectly fine way to start.

An example of a BAD popsci book about RH is "The Riemann Hypothesis", by Karl Sabbagh. Sabbagh is a jack-of-all-trades who tried a book about RH once, and is not himself a trained mathematician. Thus, in the preparation of his book (and final publication), Sabbath made /at least/ five basic arithmetic errors in his crap book that I can recall identifying while a teenager.

I read it. Excellent book just to get your feet wet. I would recommend it.

>>8589205
Thanks a lot pal. I'm a second-year undergrad math student so I wouldn't say I'm going in blind. Pretty solid understanding of basic linear algebra and some complex analysis.

I'm mainly interested as the Riemann hypothesis is touted to be so important, and I know so little about it. Obviously being an unsolved problem, the vast majority of the ins and outs will be far beyond my reach, but this book seemed like a good place to start

>>8589211

Okay, so since you're actually being trained and have a healthy general interest in your field (I was unclear on this by OP language) I will go ahead and link the Edwards book anyway, which contains Riemann's paper on the topic. It is a technical exposition of various angles of the problem which were known at the time of publication.

http://store.doverpublications.com/0486417409.html