Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Simplest, Quickest and Self-Contained Proof that1/2≤θ≤1(θ Being the Least Upper Bound of the Real Parts of the Zeros of ζ(s))


Affiliations
1 School of Mathematics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Colaba, Bombay-400005, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


We will prove that ζ(s) (s=σ+it), defined by
ζ(s)=Σn-s (σ>1), (1)
=(n-s-(n+u)-s)du+1/s-1 (σ>0),(2)
=(1-p-s)-1(σ>1),(1)
has infinity of complex zeros in a σ≥1/2-δ for every constant δ>0. (In (3) the product runs over all primes p). Let θ denote the least upper bound of the real parts of the zeros of ζ(s). Then by (3) we have trivially θ≤1 and by what we will prove it follows that θ≥1/2. These results are not new. But the merit of our proof is the fact that apart from using Cauchy’s Theorem for certain rectangles, we use only the simple facts given by (1), (2) and (3). The proof is simpler than the one given in [1]. Without complicating the proof we prove the following theorem.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


Abstract Views: 188

PDF Views: 0




  • Simplest, Quickest and Self-Contained Proof that1/2≤θ≤1(θ Being the Least Upper Bound of the Real Parts of the Zeros of ζ(s))

Abstract Views: 188  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

K. Ramachandra
School of Mathematics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Colaba, Bombay-400005, India

Abstract


We will prove that ζ(s) (s=σ+it), defined by
ζ(s)=Σn-s (σ>1), (1)
=(n-s-(n+u)-s)du+1/s-1 (σ>0),(2)
=(1-p-s)-1(σ>1),(1)
has infinity of complex zeros in a σ≥1/2-δ for every constant δ>0. (In (3) the product runs over all primes p). Let θ denote the least upper bound of the real parts of the zeros of ζ(s). Then by (3) we have trivially θ≤1 and by what we will prove it follows that θ≥1/2. These results are not new. But the merit of our proof is the fact that apart from using Cauchy’s Theorem for certain rectangles, we use only the simple facts given by (1), (2) and (3). The proof is simpler than the one given in [1]. Without complicating the proof we prove the following theorem.