ITT we prove the Riemann hypothesis one word at a time

[math]\epsilon <0[/math]

[math]: \epsilon = - 1/12[/math]

>>8594295
Why would you make it <0 though. It's always >0.

Assuming

the circumference of

Lebesguian

>>8594395
the cube ADBDEFGH

in each Kafkaesque category

of second-order

let [math]\eta[/math] be a non-trivial zero, [math]\mathbb{C}[/math] doesn't exist because [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] doesn't exist and there are no number above [math]10^{300}[/math] therefore [math]\eta < 10^{300}[/math] and thus...

>>8594414
Op is a faggot.

>>8594404
on the induced topology of the n+1 dimensional semi-spheroids with the Manhattan metric

File: download.jpg (9KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 259x194px

>>8594414
Wilderberger detected

>>8594390
That's the joke anon.

>>8594446
I actually thought there was something interesting to discover here. Thanks for ruining it for me.

Quantum-deterministic

classical

contravariant

statically indeterminant

frobenioid

constant

variable

If

File: 1481577701233.jpg (171KB, 647x820px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 647x820px

Could someone sum up, how would this function tell us about the number of primes in some region?
And the main question does calculating the number of primes using this function in some region is less demanding than classical (standard) methods?
Also, what are some areas, where knowing how many primes are in some region can be useful?

[math] \blacksquare [/math]

When

[eqn]e^x=0[/eqn]

ζ(z)

because God said so

>>8594806
checkmate athiests

such that

there exist

>>8594733
I up this. Any kindanon explain this like you'd do it for a retard please.

for all x in A

>>8594293
>mfw an infinite number of anons hitting keys at random on their mechanical keyboards will never ever type a proof confirming or refuting the Riemann hypothesis

>>8594856
Top kek

>>8594856
Where did you find the math textbook font?

>>8594856
/sci/ needs to publish an academic paper

an covariant inversion on the n-manifold

>>8594305
>>8594422
>>>/pol/
You have to go back.

>>8594856
>nigger, why would you make it [math]<0[/math] though
nicely added comma

pg144 odds-only

p-adic numbers

>>8594898
Absolute kek.

>>8594898
Really makes you think.

>>8594293
Primality

>>8594402
Haha dude that shit is totally kafkaesque

>>8594733
Any math dudes out here?
We are waiting for comments.

>>8594898
It looks valid.

>>8594898
hyphen between fag-got
fucking perfect

>>8594856
tanquam ex ungue leonem

QED

>>8595025
/thread

>>8594898
Can't argue with that.

>>8594733
>>8594947
Prime number theorem (pi(x) ~ (approaches) x/lnx, where pi(x) is the prime counting function, e.g. pi(2)=1, pi(10)=pi(9)=4) is equivalent to the statement [math]\zeta(a+ib) \neq 0 : a=0[/math], or that it has no zeros with real part s = 0. There is no elementary proof of prime number theorem, as of yet, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining exactly how this connection works and why, but basically, let [math]\displaystyle R(x)=1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac {(\ln{x})^n} {nn!\zeta(n+1)} [/math] (that +1 comes in because 1 isn't prime, but some equations act like it is), [math]R(x)-\pi(x)=\sum\limits_{\rho} R(x^\rho)[/math] where [math]\rho[/math] is a nontrivial zero of zeta.

Note that none of this really can be applied to anything, despite what popsci articles tell you. We already know primes larger than computers even bother to use, and lookup tables for factorizations have already been made. Besides, all that the Riemann hypothesis does to solve this is allow approximations of pi(x). For example, if it's true, [math]\pi(x)=Li(x)+O(sqrt(x)\ln(x))[/math] where [math]Li(x)=\int_2^x\frac {dt} {\ln{t}} [/math] (which doesn't have a closed form expression).

>>8595075
Oops, I mean a=1, not a=0 for that top statement. I'm pretty sure the a=0 case is trivial, but I forget now.

>>8594293

ayo hol up

whadif

we pluh in

imaginary numbas

>>8595254
n sheeit