Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Spencer-Brown's purported proof of Riemann Hypothesis
Replies: 8   Last Post: Aug 7, 2006 12:17 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 john baez Posts: 460 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Spencer-Brown's purported proof of Riemann Hypothesis
Posted: Aug 6, 2006 6:30 AM

In article <je2dnSC6K7IEWVbZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Tim Peters <tim.one@comcast.net> wrote:

>Note: because it's never clear, I'll note that by "li(n)" he must mean the
>integral from 0 (not 2) to n of 1/log(t) dt.

That's right; in a long footnote on beginning on page 7 he complains
about "false values" of li(n) "obtained by beginning the integration
in the wrong place (at 2 instead of 0)". It's fun to read.

He seems to make no attempt at all to prove his strong bound

|pi(n) - li(n)| < |sqrt(li n)| for n > 1

except to claim that it follows from the Tschebycheff-Sylvester
formula

.95695 (n/log n) < pi(n) < 1.0443 (n/log n)

I have no idea why thinks so. The T-S formula bounds pi(n) to
within errors of O(n/log n), but to get the Riemann hypothesis
one needs bounds with errors of O(sqrt(n) log(n)).

Date Subject Author
7/28/06 Matthew Watkins
7/28/06 G. A. Edgar
7/28/06 victor_meldrew_666@yahoo.co.uk
7/29/06 Christopher J. Henrich
7/29/06 Tim Peters
8/6/06 john baez
8/6/06 Tim Peters
8/7/06 victor_meldrew_666@yahoo.co.uk
8/6/06 john baez