Mixing
What makes Riemann hypothesis so much harder to prove than its analogue for curves over finite fields
$begingroup$
The analogue of the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields has been shown by André Weil (see also Roadmap to Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields) and further deep results (Weil conjectures) are known to hold for the zeta function in this case.
What I want to know is: what makes proving the Riemann hypothesis so much harder than its analogue for curves over finite fields? What makes it hard (probably impossible) to generalize the ideas that were used in the finite field case to a proof of the Riemann hypthesis?
number-theory riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis
asked Jan 8 at 0:17
NubokNubok
1456
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The analogue of the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields has been shown by André Weil (see also Roadmap to Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields) and further deep results (Weil conjectures) are known to hold for the zeta function in this case.
What I want to know is: what makes proving the Riemann hypothesis so much harder than its analogue for curves over finite fields? What makes it hard (probably impossible) to generalize the ideas that were used in the finite field case to a proof of the Riemann hypthesis?
number-theory riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis
asked Jan 8 at 0:17
NubokNubok
1456
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
let me guess: infiniteness?
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jan 8 at 0:20
2
$begingroup$
It should be possible to say on the $mathbb{Z}$ case we need to approximate $sum_{p^k le x} log(p) = sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)log(d)$ on the $C/mathbb{F}_q$ case it is $ sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)(q^d + O(q^{d/2}))$. The latter is obviously $sum_{n le x} (q^n+ O(q^{n(1/2+epsilon)}))= frac{q^{x+1}}{q-1}+O(q^{x(1/2+epsilon)})$. So to go from Weil to RH you'd need to let $q to 1$ and it doesn't behave well arithmetically and wrt asymptotics.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Jan 8 at 1:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The analogue of the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields has been shown by André Weil (see also Roadmap to Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields) and further deep results (Weil conjectures) are known to hold for the zeta function in this case.
What I want to know is: what makes proving the Riemann hypothesis so much harder than its analogue for curves over finite fields? What makes it hard (probably impossible) to generalize the ideas that were used in the finite field case to a proof of the Riemann hypthesis?
number-theory riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis
asked Jan 8 at 0:17
NubokNubok
1456
$endgroup$
The analogue of the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields has been shown by André Weil (see also Roadmap to Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields) and further deep results (Weil conjectures) are known to hold for the zeta function in this case.
What I want to know is: what makes proving the Riemann hypothesis so much harder than its analogue for curves over finite fields? What makes it hard (probably impossible) to generalize the ideas that were used in the finite field case to a proof of the Riemann hypthesis?
number-theory riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis
number-theory riemann-zeta riemann-hypothesis
asked Jan 8 at 0:17
NubokNubok
1456
asked Jan 8 at 0:17
NubokNubok
1456
asked Jan 8 at 0:17
NubokNubok
1456
asked Jan 8 at 0:17
NubokNubok
1456
asked Jan 8 at 0:17
NubokNubok
1456
1456
1
$begingroup$
let me guess: infiniteness?
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jan 8 at 0:20
2
$begingroup$
It should be possible to say on the $mathbb{Z}$ case we need to approximate $sum_{p^k le x} log(p) = sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)log(d)$ on the $C/mathbb{F}_q$ case it is $ sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)(q^d + O(q^{d/2}))$. The latter is obviously $sum_{n le x} (q^n+ O(q^{n(1/2+epsilon)}))= frac{q^{x+1}}{q-1}+O(q^{x(1/2+epsilon)})$. So to go from Weil to RH you'd need to let $q to 1$ and it doesn't behave well arithmetically and wrt asymptotics.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Jan 8 at 1:40
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
let me guess: infiniteness?
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jan 8 at 0:20
2
$begingroup$
It should be possible to say on the $mathbb{Z}$ case we need to approximate $sum_{p^k le x} log(p) = sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)log(d)$ on the $C/mathbb{F}_q$ case it is $ sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)(q^d + O(q^{d/2}))$. The latter is obviously $sum_{n le x} (q^n+ O(q^{n(1/2+epsilon)}))= frac{q^{x+1}}{q-1}+O(q^{x(1/2+epsilon)})$. So to go from Weil to RH you'd need to let $q to 1$ and it doesn't behave well arithmetically and wrt asymptotics.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Jan 8 at 1:40
1
1
$begingroup$
let me guess: infiniteness?
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jan 8 at 0:20
$begingroup$
let me guess: infiniteness?
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jan 8 at 0:20
2
2
$begingroup$
It should be possible to say on the $mathbb{Z}$ case we need to approximate $sum_{p^k le x} log(p) = sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)log(d)$ on the $C/mathbb{F}_q$ case it is $ sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)(q^d + O(q^{d/2}))$. The latter is obviously $sum_{n le x} (q^n+ O(q^{n(1/2+epsilon)}))= frac{q^{x+1}}{q-1}+O(q^{x(1/2+epsilon)})$. So to go from Weil to RH you'd need to let $q to 1$ and it doesn't behave well arithmetically and wrt asymptotics.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Jan 8 at 1:40
$begingroup$
It should be possible to say on the $mathbb{Z}$ case we need to approximate $sum_{p^k le x} log(p) = sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)log(d)$ on the $C/mathbb{F}_q$ case it is $ sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)(q^d + O(q^{d/2}))$. The latter is obviously $sum_{n le x} (q^n+ O(q^{n(1/2+epsilon)}))= frac{q^{x+1}}{q-1}+O(q^{x(1/2+epsilon)})$. So to go from Weil to RH you'd need to let $q to 1$ and it doesn't behave well arithmetically and wrt asymptotics.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Jan 8 at 1:40
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065666%2fwhat-makes-riemann-hypothesis-so-much-harder-to-prove-than-its-analogue-for-curv%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065666%2fwhat-makes-riemann-hypothesis-so-much-harder-to-prove-than-its-analogue-for-curv%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
let me guess: infiniteness?
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jan 8 at 0:20
2
$begingroup$
It should be possible to say on the $mathbb{Z}$ case we need to approximate $sum_{p^k le x} log(p) = sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)log(d)$ on the $C/mathbb{F}_q$ case it is $ sum_{n le x}sum_{d | n} mu(n/d)(q^d + O(q^{d/2}))$. The latter is obviously $sum_{n le x} (q^n+ O(q^{n(1/2+epsilon)}))= frac{q^{x+1}}{q-1}+O(q^{x(1/2+epsilon)})$. So to go from Weil to RH you'd need to let $q to 1$ and it doesn't behave well arithmetically and wrt asymptotics.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Jan 8 at 1:40