What is the best book to learn more about the Riemann's

>>9104619
Have you read Riemann's paper about it and learned all of the material needed to understand his arguments/constructions?

>>9104671
I haven't. Where are Riemann's papers and what are the materials needed to understand it?

>>9104619
As you know, the world we see is a simulation of sorts and the RH is a key piece of information needed to crack it. Thus measures are in place to make sure no one solves it.

>>9104671
>>9104678

Riemann's original paper is contained in the book that the OP posted. The OP would know that if he were halfway serious and he had at least flipped through the book, and the FP would have known that if he'd had likewise cursory knowledge of the book.

>>9104619
By the way, Riemann's paper contains no information whatsoever as to the true nature of the problem and is in fact intended to obscure it.

>>9105106
I'm completely serious about it, I'm just a little lost, please help me.

So this books is indeed good, right?

>>9105090
If that was the case and I was the alien running the simulation then I would have never let humans learn about complex numbers.

They are playing a dangerous game. One day someone with the right phenotype could be born and he would crack the simulation.

>>9105334
Or you could just pretend complex numbers are scalars, amirite.

>>9105090
>He doesn't know how to glitch the simulation

>>9105903

The book that the OP posted is a good book for learning about the function and the problem You learn a series of tricks and properties relating to the funciton, which are good to know, but the trouble obviously is that it doens't solve RH. It also contains proper historical context, as I've already said. The other trouble is that the OP and other people don't seem to be aware of these things, as I'd already pointed out.

Non-technical books on the topic which are geared toward the layman are John Derbyshire's /Prime Obsession/, a good treatment, and Karl Sabbagh's /The Riemann Hypothesis/, written by a rank amateur general non-fiction writer who thought he'd try a math book from a journalistic point of view. However, Sabbagh's book contains /at least/ five elementary arithmetic errors, and when you have that many easily identified problems in your published text, it renders your ability to talk about math at all, especially as an amateur journalist (Sabbagh's role), highly suspect.