The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016)
medium.com
The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016)
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016)
#2> The fourth and final term is an integral which is zero for x This does not seem correct. Overall a good article though.
Re: The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016)
#3> The fourth and final term is an integral which is zero for x This does not seem correct. Overall a good article though.
A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that cannot be formed by multiplying two smaller natural numbers.
Re: The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016)
#4See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13344071 for some interesting past discussion
Re: The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016)
#5Prime Obsession, by John Derbyshire, is a very entertaining and well written book about this topic, following a similar path (although much slower) among the conceptual building blocks required to understand the hypothesis.
Re: The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016)
#6Prime Obsession, by John Derbyshire, is a very entertaining and well written book about this topic, following a similar path (although much slower) among the conceptual building blocks required to understand the hypothesis.
John Derbyshire has become a controversial figure:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/...
Re: The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016)
#7Prime Obsession, by John Derbyshire, is a very entertaining and well written book about this topic, following a similar path (although much slower) among the conceptual building blocks required to understand the hypothesis.
John Derbyshire has become a controversial figure: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/...
Wow, that's out there. It's such a shame that so many people whose work would otherwise be a net positive have to stain their reputations by being such outright a-holes in other aspects of life.
Re: The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016)
#8Prime Obsession, by John Derbyshire, is a very entertaining and well written book about this topic, following a similar path (although much slower) among the conceptual building blocks required to understand the hypothesis.
John Derbyshire has become a controversial figure: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/...
[deleted]
Re: The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016)
#9> The fourth and final term is an integral which is zero for x This does not seem correct. Overall a good article though.
I was doing some reading about the Rieman hypotesis like a month ago - when searching I came across this very same post - not sure if here or somewhere else, but I read that the stric definition of a prime number (It has to be divisible only by itself, and obviously _also_ by 1) rules out 1 bcause it is only divisible by itself. I mean, it is divisible by one, but that doesn't count as _also_.
Re: The Riemann Hypothesis, explained (2016)
#10> The fourth and final term is an integral which is zero for x This does not seem correct. Overall a good article though.
I was doing some reading about the Rieman hypotesis like a month ago - when searching I came across this very same post - not sure if here or somewhere else, but I read that the stric definition of a prime number (It has to be divisible only by itself, and obviously _also_ by 1) rules out 1 bcause it is only divisible by itself. I mean, it is divisible by one, but that doesn't count as _also_.
Like everything else in mathematics, the definition of 'prime' which excludes 1 is a convenient convention. If we don't let 1 be a prime number, then by the "Fundamental theorem of arithmetic"[1] we can say that every number is either prime or a unique product of primes. If we let 1 be a prime, we could write e.g. 6=2x3, or 6=2x3x1x1, so the factorization would no longer be a unique product of primes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_arithme...