a

r
X
i
v
:
0
8
1
0
.
2
1
0
2
v
1
6


[
m
a
t
h
.
G
M
]


1
2

M
a
y

2
0
1
3
JOURNAL OF THE
AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY
Volume 00, Number 0, Pages 000000
S 0894-0347(XX)0000-0
FROM THE DENSITY AND LINDEL

OF HYPOTHESES
TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS
VIA A POWER SUM METHOD
YUANYOU CHENG
Dedicated to George E. Andrews on the occasion of his 75
th
birthday
1. Introduction
If I were to awaken after having slept for ve hundred years,
my rst question would be: Has the Riemann hypothesis been
proven? [3] (pp. 5)
David Hilbert (attributed to)
Throughout this article, we shall use notations P for the set of all prime
numbers, P
N
that of the all prime powers, N = {1, 2, 3, . . .} that of natural
numbers, Z that of the integers, R that of the real numbers, and C that of
the complex numbers. We adopt the notation aN+b, to denote the subset of
Z containing all integers in the form of an+b, where n N and a, b Z are
xed. We also use the notation R
+
for the set of all positive real numbers.
We shall use the symbol R
+
for an arbitrary small positive real
number, not necessarily the same at each occurrence in a given statement.
Suppose that g(x) and h(x) are complex functions of the variable x and f(y)
Received by the editors April 26, 2013. The rst author Yuanyou Cheng reserves the
right to change the coauthorship to Y. Cheng, C. Pomerance, and S. Albeverio as
the sole possible alternative after he consults other colleagues, and to revise the papers
wording until the publication of the paper.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classication. Primary 11M26; Secondary 11N05, 11A41.
Key words and phrases. Prime numbers, the Riemann zeta function, the Riemann
hypothesis, the prime number theorem, the density hypothesis, the Lindel of hypothesis,
dierence, a classical integral formula, the maximum modulus principle, and, induction
on the interval.
The rst author wants to thank Carl Pomerance for his insightful suggestion toward
this direction earlier in 1994 when he was a Ph. D. student at the University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia, and the generous lasting encouragement during the writing of these
articles. He would like to thank many of his colleagues, especially to Edward S. Letzter,
Ronald L. Graham, George E. Andrews, Roger Heath-Brown, John T. Tate, Hua Chen,
Bjorn Poonen, Andrew M. Odlyzko, Andrew J. Granville, Hourong Qin, Xingde Dai,
Warren R. Wogen, Minxiang Chen, Helmut Maier, Zhihong Guan, Edward Azo, and
Zexu Yang, for their encouragements and/or comments from 1998 to 2013 in the writing of
this article and seven other articles in the project. Also, he wishes to express his gratitude
to his other coauthors in this project, especially to Sergio Albeverio, who joined in 2011
and helped the most signicantly, and to Sidney W. Graham, Juping Wang, Mehdi
Hassani, Chuansheng Wu, Glenn J. Fox, Gongbao Li, Chris K. Caldwell, and Barnet M.
Weinstock, for their fruitful collaborations with him in the papers respectively, and/or
many meaningful suggestions relating to this project.
c XXXX American Mathematical Society
1
2 YUANYOU CHENG
is a positive real-valued function of y. The notation g(x) = h(x) +O
_
f(y)
_
or g(x) = h(x) Bf(y) represents the fact that |g(x)h(x)| Bf(y) with
some absolute constant B > 0 whenever y is suciently large or y Y
0
for
some xed positive number Y
0
.
An arithmetic function f(n) is a complex-valued one dened for each
n N. The sum function F(x) for an arithmetic function f(n) is a piece-
wise constant function with possible discontinuities only at some ns for n in
a subset of N. It is convenient for us to adopt the half-maximum convention
for every such sum function; henceforth, we use the notation
(1.1)

nx
f(n) :=
_

n<x
f(n) +
1
2
f(x), if x N;

nx
f(n), otherwise.
Therefore, every sum function setting up this way for an arithmetic function
f(n) satises the half-maximum property. That is, if F(x) =

nx
f(n) is
such a sum function, then
(1.2) F(x) =
F(x 0) + F(x + 0)
2
,
at each point x where F(x 0) and F(x + 0) are the left sided limit and
right sided limit of F(x) at x, respectively. We also use the Heaviside step
function H

(v) at any xed point R, which is dened by

(1.3) H

(v) =
_

_
0, for 0 < v < ,
1
2
, for v = ,
1, for v > .
Prime numbers play a central role in number theory. Since 1859, by
Riemanns epoch-making work [47] it has been understood that in-depth
study of the distribution of primes is connected to the study of the Riemann
zeta function. The Riemann zeta function (s) is a regular complex-valued
function for s C\{1}. We shall accustomedly denote s = +it, , t R.
For > 1, the Riemann zeta function is dened by
(1.4) (s) =

n=1
1
n
s
=

pP
1
1
1
p
s
,
in which the last equation was known for a real variable s by Leonard Euler
as early as 1773, and may be regarded as an analytic version of the funda-
mental theorem of arithmetic, which states that for each natural number n
there is a unique factorization
(1.5) n =

p
a
n
p
a
,
where p
a
n means that a is the highest positive exponent such that p
a
divides n.
The denition in (1.4) may be extended to the whole complex plane in
many dierent ways. For references, one may see [3], [8], [20], or [33]. For
> 0, we have
(1.6) (s) =
s
s 1
s
_

1
v v
v
s+1
d v,
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 3
where v is the integer part of v or the greatest integer less than or equal
to v. One may notice that s = 1 is a pole for (s) having residue 1. For
s C\{1}, one may use the functional equation
(1.7)

s
2

_
s
2
_
(s) =

1s
2

_
1s
2
_
(1 s),
to consider the zeros of the Riemann zeta function. Here, (s) is a complex-
valued function extending the denition for the factorial n! such that (n+
1) = n!. One may dene it, e.g., by
(1.8) (s) =
1
s e

0
s

n=1
e
s/n
1 + s/n
,
where
0
.577215665 . . . is Eulers constant. The Gamma function (s)
has simple poles for s N + 1 and no zeros at all; from (1.7) we see that
all the poles of (s), except for that at s = 0, are compensated by the zeros
of (s) at s 2N, while the pole of (s) at s = 1 corresponds the pole
of (s) at s = 0. These zeros s 2N for (s) are called trivial zeros; all
other zeros are called non-trivial zeros. The function (s) is real-valued on
the real line, the identity
(1.9) (s) = (s),
holds then from the reection principle of complex analysis for all s C.
It shows, in particular, that all non-trivial zeros are symmetric about the
real line. From the functional equation (1.7), one sees that all non-trivial
zeros are symmetric about the line =
1
2
even though (s) is not symmetric
about the line =
1
2
. It is not dicult to prove from Euler product formula,
i.e., the second equation in (1.4) that all non-trivial zeros for the Riemann
zeta function are located in the so-called critical strip 0 1 .
The Riemann hypothesis states there are no zeros for (s) for >
1
2
, which is equivalent to the statement that all the non-trivial zeros are
located on the line =
1
2
by the property of symmetry from its functional
equation. This conjecture was made by Riemann in 1860 together with six
other conjectures in [47]. Every other conjecture made by Riemann has
been proved since that time, but the Riemann hypothesis has resisted every
attack so far.
It was proved in 1896 by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin that (s)
does not have zeros on the line = 1. However, even whether the Riemann
zeta function does not have zeros for > a with respect to any xed
1
2

a < 1 was not known before the present work. The best known zero free
region so far, from Vinogradovs method, was in the form of
(1.10) > 1
1
49.13 log
2/3
|t| (log log |t|)
1/3
,
see [24], or [15].
In another direction, we denote the number of zeros of (s) on the critical
line s =
1
2
+ it such that 0 < t < T by M(T). Related to the study of
M(T), Hardy proved in 1941 that there are innitely many zeros of (s)
on the critical line. Selberg improved this in 1942 with M(T) > C
T
2
log
T
2
with respect to some constant 0 < C < 1 for T > T
0
, where T
0
is a
positive constant. Also, Levinson showed in 1974 that at least one third of
4 YUANYOU CHENG
the nontrivial zeros of (s) are on the critical line. This at least one third
has been improved to two-fths by Conrey in 1989. For references, one may
see [21], [50], [40], [53], and [18].
On the computational side, we mention here that Gourdon summarized
the calculation of the rst 10
13
zeros of (s) on the critical line in 2004, see
[26]. Such computations involve Grams law, Rossers rule, Turings method,
and the Odlyzko-Schonhage algorithm which is a heuristics for the location
of zeros on the critical line, see [5], [52], and [44].
2. The main results
If you could be the Devil and oer a mathematician to sell
his soul for the proof of one theorem - what theorem would
most mathematicians ask for? I think it would be the Riemann
hypothesis. [39]
Hugh L. Montgomery
It is important to consider the Riemann hypothesis in terms of how it relates
to number theory, as its principal application concerns the prime numbers.
The prime indicator function, Id
P
(n) for every n N, is dened by
(2.1) Id
P
(n) =
_
1, if n is a prime number;
0, if n is not a prime number.
The prime counting function (x), or the sum function for the prime
indicator, is dened by
(2.2) (x) =

nx
Id
P
(n) =
_
1
2
Id
P
(n) +

n<x
Id
P
(n), if x P;

nx
Id
P
(n), otherwise,
with the notation

meaning that the half-maximum convention is adopt-

ed as in (2.1) and the last expression is valid because Id
P
(n) = 0 for x N\P.
Gauss logarithmic integral function Li(x) is dened by
(2.3) Li(x) =
_
x
2
d u
log u
, x > 0.
The prime number theorem in its best known form before the present paper
was

(x) Li(x)

11 x log
3/5
x e
c
0
log
3/5
x(log log x)
1/5
, x 3,

(x) x

9 x log
8/5
x e
c log
3/5
x(log log x)
1/5
, x 1.999706,
(2.4)
with c
0
=
1
5
and c =
9
50
, which is from the main theorem and Lemma
7 from[16]; one may see, e.g., [31], [33], [45], [59] for historical references,
where (x) is Chebyshevs function, see (2.9) below. Note that in (2.4)
explicit constants are given, which is not the case in [22], [31], and [33] also
reports on page 347 that other results, of above type could be deduced once
the zero free region claimed in [36] and [57] could be proven.
Let 0 1 and T > 0. The density hypothesis says that
(2.5) N(, T) = O
_
T
2(1)+
_
,
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 5
where N(, T) is the number of zeros for (s) in the region for which
and 0 < t T. It is easy to see that N(, T) = 0 when > 1 from Eulers
product formula, the second equation in (1.4). The above-mentioned result
by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin in 1896 implies N(1, T) = 0. In the
case that = 0, it has been known, since 1905, by means of the Riemann-
von Mangoldt Theorem that
(2.6) N(T) := N(0, T) =
T
2
log
T
2
+ O(log T), T 2.
We shall call the following statement the strong density hypothesis:
(2.7) N(, T) = O(T
2(1)
log T).
This has been recently proved in [12] in an even stronger form, see (2.27)
below.
Another important conjecture in the studies of the Riemann zeta func-
tion is the Lindel of hypothesis, which states that
(2.8)

_
1
2
+ it
_

= O
_
t

_
,
where is a suciently small positive number. This has also been proved
recently in [11].
We dene the Chebyshev function (x) for x > 0 with the half-maximum
principle adopted, as in some of the literature, e.g., [42], pp. 56, and [34],
pp. 75, and the -function (x) by
(2.9) (x) =

nx
(n), (x) =

nx
_
(n) 1
_
, x > 0, n N,
where (n) is the von Mangoldt function dened by
(2.10) (n) =
_
log p, if n = p
k
P
N
,
0, otherwise.
Henceforth, we let x
0
= 0.9999, x
1
= 1.999706, and D = 10.05 in this
article. Also, X
3
was dened after the denitions of H
j
(x) and h
j
(t) for all
j N + 2, especially, we have 93.453 < X
3
< 93.454.
We remark here that (1) =
1
2
, (x) = 1 for 1 < x < 2, (2) =
log 23
2
> 1.154. From this, we see
(x) = 0, for 0 < x 0.9999;
(x) 1.154, for 0.9999 < x 1.999706.
(2.11)
Also, (x) = log 2 2 for 2 < x < 3, (3) =
2 log 2log 35
2
, (x) = log 2 +
log 3 3 for 3 < x < 4, (4) =
3 log 2+2 log 37
2
, and (x) = 2 log 2 +log 3 4
for 4 < x < 5.
Concerning this function (x), Hardy and Littlewood in [29] studied the
function F(u) =

n=2
(n)1
e
nu
in the limit u 0+. There exists a value V
such that F(u) <
V

u
and F(u) >
V

u
innitely often, this phenomenon
emerges only when u is very small.
6 YUANYOU CHENG
Corresponding to the function (x) dened in (2.9), we use the following
Z-function dened by
(2.12) Z(s) =

(s)
(s)
(s) =

n=1
(n) 1
n
s
,
instead of only the rst term in the second expression as in the literature
regarding the function (x). The last equality is valid for > 1 and the
series in (2.12) converges absolutely and uniformly in the half-plane 1+
for any > 0. For convenience, we henceforth denote the set of all non-
trivial zeros for the Riemann zeta function by Z. That is,
(2.13) Z = { : = + i , with R, R, () = 0, 0 < < 1}.
We shall henceforth take
T
0
= 2445999554999,
J
(0)
=
_
2T
3
0
349.13 log
5/3
T
0
(log log T
0
)
1/3
_
= 498303067666174159738315540004864,
J
0
=
_
T
3
0
3 log T
0
_
= 171007430650619143104898419048509065.
(2.14)
For each j N + 2 (we do not need to consider the cases for j = 1 or 2),
we henceforth denote
(2.15) H
j
(x) =
_
min
_
1
2
,
j log log x
2 log x
_
, x X
j
,
1
2
, 2 x < X
j
,
and
(2.16) h
j
(t) =
_
min
_
1
2
,
jv log t
2t
v
_
, |t| T
j
,
1
2
, |t| < T
j
,
where v = 3, with X
j
the unique solution of log x = j log log x for x > e
j
with respect to the variable for each xed j N + 2 and T
j
the unique
solution of jv log t = t
v
for t > j
1/v
. We remark that from the denitions in
(2.15) and (2.16) we have
(2.17) 0 < H
j
(x)
1
2
, 0 < h
j
(t)
1
2
,
for all j N + 2. The domain of H
j
(x) is x [1.999706, ) and that of
h
j
(t) is t [0, ).
The function H
j
(x) is a two-piece piece-wise dierentiable function that
has no derivative at x = X
j
and H

j
(x) =
j(1log log x)
2 xlog
2
x
< 0 when x X
j
.
From these properties, it is not dicult to see that the function H
j
(x) for
x X
j
is a decreasing function tending to 0 as x tends to . We note that
f
j
(x) = log x j log log x is a monotonously increasing function for x e
j
and f
j
(e
j
) < 0, therefore, X
j
is well-dened and unique. Actually, X
j
is a
strictly increasing function with respect to j N + 2 and X
j
is the joint
point of two pieces in the denition of H
j
(x). We also note that
(2.18)

nx
1 =
_
x {x}, x N,
x
1
2
, x N,
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 7
where, {x} is the fractional part of x. From this and

nx
(n) =

nx
((n) 1)+

nx
1,
we see that
(2.19) (x) + x 1 < (x) (x) + x.
Recalling the second estimate in (2.4), in which x 1 > 0, and (2.9) we get
(2.20) (x) (x) x + 1 < 9 x
1H
3
(x)
log
2
x, x X
3
,
noting that
(2.21) x
2 log log x
3 log x

c
log
2/5
x(log log x)
1/5
= x
log log x
log
2/5
x
_
3
2 log
3/5
x

c
(log log x)
6/5

1,
for x X
3
. In fact, we have
(2.22) (x) D
0
x
1H
3
(x)
log
2
x, X
3
x < , with D
0
= 9,
which implicitly means that (x) D
0
x
1/2
log
2
x for 1.999706 x < X
3
because of the denition of H
3
(x). Moreover, from [49] we have
(2.23) (x) D
(0)
x
1/2
log
2
x, x
1
x < X
3
, with D
(0)
= 97.
The estimates in (2.11) and (2.23) will be needed in (7.6).
Similarly, T
j
is a strictly increasing function of the variable j N + 2.
Furthermore, we know that T
j
< T
0
for all 3 j J
0
, where J
0
is dened in
(2.14), from (1.10). Therefore, we may replace T
j
by T
0
for all 3 J J
0
,
whenever convenient and necessary. From (1.10) we notice that there are no
zeros for the Riemann zeta function for > 1 h
j
(t) with J
(0)
dened in
(1.10), since by the design of J
(0)
we have
1
49.13 log
2/3
t(log log t)
1/3

3j log t
2t
3
for
t T
0
when 3 j J
(0)
.
The Riemann zeta function does not have zeros for |t| < 14, see, e.g.,
[21]. In the computational perspective, we mention here that X. Gourdon
uses an optimization of Odlyzko and Schonhage algorithm in [44] and has
veried in [26] that the 10
13
rst zeros of the Riemann zeta function, as
already known in 2004, are simple and located on =
1
2
. We use this result
and the estimate
(2.24)

N(T) M(T) +
7
8

Q(T) ,
where N(T) is dened in (2.6) and M(T) =
T
2
log
T
2

T
2
and Q(T) =
0.137 log T +0.443 log log T +1.588, for T 2, in [51], to nd out that there
are no zeros for the Riemann zeta function for |t| < 2445999554999, as in
[11] and [12]. This justies the choice of T
0
in (2.14) in relation with the
denition of h
j
(t) for j N+2. Therefore, we have T
j
= T
0
for 5 j e
T
0
and T
j
> T
0
for j > e
T
0
. Also from (2.24), we have
(2.25) N(T) <
T log T
2
,
for T 6 as used in [13].
Tur an gave a result relating the zero-free regions of the Riemann zeta
function with the error term in the prime counting function, by using his
power sum method, in 1950, see [54] and [55], pp. 111 119 and pp.155166.
In [9], we extended Tur ans result to the following lemma.
8 YUANYOU CHENG
Lemma 1. Let H
j
(x) and h
j
(t) be dened in (2.15) and (2.16), respectively.
If
(2.26) (x) Dx
1H(x)
log
2
x, x 1.999706,
where D = 10.05, then (s) does not have zeros when > 1 h(t) with
respect to all j N+ 2 and |t| < , where H(x) = H
j
(x) and h(t) = h
j
(t)
for the same j N + 2.
It is well-known that the Riemann hypothesis implies the Lindel of hy-
pothesis and the Lindel of hypothesis implies the density hypothesis, see, e.g.,
[33], pp. 47. However, it has not been known whether the density hypothesis
and the Lindel of hypothesis together imply the Riemann hypothesis. In this
article, we give an armative answer, which however requires the holding
of strong and explicit versions of the density hypothesis and the Lindel of
hypothesis, in the following sense made precise by (2.27) and (2.28).
With the help of Lemma 1, we shall prove the following results.
Theorem 1. The explicit strong density hypothesis and the strong Lindel of
hypothesis together imply the Riemann hypothesis.
In [43], there are some quotations by A. Selberg on the Riemann hypothe-
sis. One is reported by P. Malliavin: During 1960-1961 I also discussed with
Selberg some perspectives concerning progress on the Lindel of hypothesis.
I remember that Selberg was quite convinced that a proof of the Lindel of
hypothesis would be a decisive step toward the Riemann hypothesis.
The explicit strong density hypothesis states, see [12], that
(2.27) N(, T) 8.734 log T, T T
0
,
for all
1
2
< < 1, and the strong Lindelof hypothesis states, see [11], that
(2.28) |( + iT)| BT
b
, >
1
2
, T T
0
,
respectively, with B = 59, and b =
17
47
. Moreover, we have the following
Theorem 2.
Theorem 2. The Riemann hypothesis is valid; i.e., all non-trivial zeros for
the Riemann zeta function lie on the line s =
1
2
.
We remark that in [10], it were proved by applying van der Corputs
method (of 1921) that (2.28) holds with T
b
replaced by T
1
6
log T and for
the value of the constant B = 3, only in the case =
1
2
. The best known
result in this direction before [11] was one with the value of b in the above
T
b
replaced by a constant which is slightly smaller than
1
6
. We do not know
whether the strong Lindel of hypothesis implies the strong density hypothesis
dened in (2.7) or the even stronger result in (2.27).
The Riemann hypothesis may be regarded as the analytic version for the
prime number theorem in the following form as stated in Theorem 3 below,
in the sense that the Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to the assertion on
the estimate of the prime counting function in the form of (2.29), which is
stated in [19]. The result in (2.29) for x 1451 may also be found in [51].
Theorem 3. The prime number theorem in the form of
(2.29)

(x) Li(x)

1
8
x
1
2
log x,
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 9
whenever x 1451, holds. The estimate is also valid for 2.01 x < 1451
if the coecient
1
8
is replaced by 1.
We shall also prove the following Theorem 4. From the denitions (2.9),
it is straightforward to see that (2.30) below is equivalent to the statement
(x) = x+O
_
x
1/2
log
2
x
_
. Also, it is a standard result in the literature, see,
e.g., [53], [33] that (x) = x + O
_
x
1/2
log
2
x
_
is equivalent to the Riemann
hypothesis or Theorem 3. Therefore, Theorem 1 is equivalent to Theorem
4.
Theorem 4. The explicit strong density hypothesis in (2.27) and the strong
Lindelof hypothesis in (2.28) together imply
(2.30) (x) Dx
1/2
log
2
x, x x
1
,
with x
1
= 1.999706 and D = 10.05.
One may think that (2.30) is weaker than (2.29); however, they are ac-
tually equivalent. This observation tells us that the sizes of the positive
constants D and x
1
are not very important.
We have the following corollary from Theorem 2 concerning the series in
(2.12) which we mentioned being absolutely convergent for > 1.
Corollary 1. The series in (2.12) for Z(s) is conditionally convergent for
1
2
< 1.
We remark here that a related integral, as in (8.9), is indeed absolutely
convergent, even though the series in (2.12) is not absolutely convergent. We
shall conrm Corollary 1 at the end of Section 8. Related to this corollary,
we have the following lemma, in which the absolute convergence of the series
is not necessary to guarantee the analyticity of the resulting function.
Lemma 2. If the series in (2.12) is conditionally convergent for >
1
2
,
then the Riemann hypothesis is valid.
Proof. The proof of Lemma 2 may be done easily by contradiction. Suppose
the Riemann hypothesis is not valid, then there exist some = + i,
Z, with >
1
2
with R and R. Denoting the multiplicity of
by k with k N and writing (s) = (s )
k

0
(s), we see that
0
() = 0. It
follows that, for s = 1 and s =

where

is a zero of (s),
(2.31)

(s)
(s)
=
k
0
(s)+(s)

0
(s)
(s)
0
(s)
,
which implies (

0
(s) being nite at s = ) that Z(s) dened in (2.12) has
a simple pole at s = . This contradicts the assumption in Lemma 2, as
the conditional convergence of the series implies that the resulting function
takes a nite value at the point at s = .
Now, we start with the following propositions for the proof of Theorem
4, followed by the results in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Proposition 1. Let H
j
for all j N+2 be dened in (2.15) and j N+2
be xed. Suppose that (x) Dx
1H
j
(x)
log
2
x for x x
1
. If the Riemann
zeta function does not have any zeros in the region where > 1 h
j
(t),
then (x) Dx
1H
j+1
(x)
log
2
x for x x
1
.
10 YUANYOU CHENG
Before we prove Proposition 1, we rst have the following estimate as
stated in Proposition 2 below, in which we have used H(x) for H
j
(x) for
brevity in the following discussion until the proof of Proposition 1 in Section
7; we denote h(t) = h
j
(t) accordingly. Readers may notice that one can
always regard h(t) = h
j
(t) =
1
2
for 0 T T
0
, where h
j
(t) is dened in
(2.16), T
0
is dened in (2.14).
Proposition 2. Let j N + 2 be xed, H(x) = H
j
(x), and h(t) = h
j
(t).
Suppose that (x) Dx
1H(x)
log
2
x for x X
3
. Let x > y > 83.785 with
x N and y N. Assume that H(y) h(T) and
(2.32) (y) Dz
1H(z)
log

z, 0 <
3
2
, for x
1
z < y.
If there is no zero for the Riemann zeta function in the region > 1 h(t)
and < t < , then,
(2.33) (x) (y) 3.003 A
(xy) log

x
x
h(T)
,
where
A = max
_
1.001A,
1.001B

, D
_
= 10.05,
= max{
b log T
log log y
+ ,
log log T
log log y
, +
log T
log log y
}
(2.34)
with 0 < <
h(T) log log y
log y
, A = 8.734, B = 59, D = 10.05, and b =
17
47
.
We shall prove Proposition 2 in section 6 after some preparation in sec-
tions 3, 4, and 5; we prove Proposition 1 from Proposition 2 in the rst
part of Section 7, and, we prove Theorem 4 from Proposition 2 at the end
of Section 7.
3. Applying an integral transform formula
A science is said to be useful if its development tends to ac-
centuate the existing inequalities in the distribution of wealth
or more directly promotes the destruction of human life. The
theory of prime numbers satises no such criteria. [3], [28]
Godfrey H. Hardy
We now make some preparations for proving Proposition 2, under the as-
sumption stated, esp. we assume that there is no zero for the Riemann zeta
function in the region > 1 h(t) and |t| < for the choice of m in (3.9)
below.
For convenience, from now on in this article until the end of Section 6,
we shall take
(3.1) x X
3
, x x
1/2
< y < x
1
2
x
1/2
, and 1 < u <
3
2
,
from the denition of X
j
for all j N + 2 after (2.15) and (2.16). We
may use y > X
3
X
1/2
3
> 83.785 as X
3
> 93.453 from its denition after
(2.15) and (2.16). Every statement involving x and y henceforth is valid
under this assumption, unless some specic stipulation on x, y, or u is
otherwise explicitly described. However, we shall restrict x so that x N
for convenience, until the last paragraph in the proof of Proposition 1 after
(7.7) in Section 7. We remark here that we may choose such a y satisfying
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 11
(3.1) so that y N if only x > 4 (in fact x > 93), as y may be chosen from
a half open and half closed interval of length
1
2
x
1/2
.
From the stipulation of y in (3.1), we see that y > x x
1/2
and x <
y +
1
2
+
_
y +
1
4
by solving the quadratic inequality x
2
xy < 0 of x with
x = x
1/2
. Noting that 1 +
1
2y
+
_
1
y
+
1
4y
2
< 1.116 for y > 83.785 and y < x,
we have
(3.2) x < 1.116 y.
We dene an associate of t for t > u with respect to any u > 0 as
follows. Suppose there are n zeros
1
+iz
1
,
2
+iz
2
, . . .,
n
+iz
n
of (s) in
tu (s) t+u such that z
0
= tu z
1
< z
2
< . . . < z
n
t+u = z
n+1
.
Let 2 l n be such that
(3.3) |z
l
z
l1
| |z
k
z
k1
|, 2 k n.
That is to say, the distance |z
l
z
l1
| is the largest one in the set {|z
k
z
k1
| :
k = 1, . . . , n}. There may be more than one such an l. Fix one such l and
let T

=
z
l1
+z
l
2
. For convenience, T

is said to be the associate of t with

respect to u. By the denition of the associate of t with respect to u, we see
that
(3.4) |z
k
T

|
u
2n
, k = 1, 2, . . . , n.
We assume that
(3.5) T T
0
, T 3 T

< T,
where T
0
is dened in (2.14), such that T

= () = for any = + i
with , R, Z and T

is an associate of T
3
2
with respect to
1 < u <
3
2
, henceforth. Let
1
2
m < 1. For s on the circle |s m| = T

,
we note that
(3.6) |s|
_
m
2
+ T
2

+ m < T
__
81
64T
2
0
+ 1 +
9
8T
0
_
< 1.001 T,
from|sm| = T

, using the choice of T

0
, and the fact that |ab|

|a||b|

for any pair of complex numbers a and b.

The classical formula
(3.7)
1
2i
_
m+i
mi
v
s
s
d s = H
1
(v), m > 0,
where H
1
(v) is the Heaviside step function dened in (1.3), plays an impor-
tant role (often implicitly) in the studies of the prime numbers, in particular,
in relation with the integration of von Mangoldts -function, see, e.g., [20]
(pp. 50), or [33] (Ch. 12). However, it is used only for m > 1 in the litera-
ture. It is crucial for us to use a result related to this formula with respect
to some m such that m 1 (in addition to the formula for m > 1). In
fact, if we use the current known result, as (1.10), on the zero-free region
for the Riemann zeta function in the proof of Corollary 2, we need to use
this formula with respect to
(3.8) (i) m > 1, (ii)
1
2
< m < 1.
12 YUANYOU CHENG
We remark that there is no pole at s = 1 for the Z(s) dened in (2.12), since
the pole of

(s)
(s)
and that of (s) at s = 1 cancel on the right hand side
of (2.12), assumed as a denition of Z(s) also for s = 1. The function Z(s)
is analytic in the region > 1 h(t) and |t| < under the assumption of
Proposition 2. Therefore, we may let
(3.9) m = 1 h(T) +
log log y
log y
, 0 < <
h(T) log y
log log y
,
when we assume (ii) in (3.8) from now on. The reason for this is that we
want to apply a formula of the type (3.7) to the function Z(s) dened in
(2.12) instead of only to its rst term as in the literature.
For nding the formula replacing (3.7), we shall use the decomposition
of the Heaviside step function in the form of
(3.10) H
1
(v) =
T
(v) +
E
(v), v > 0,
where
T
(v) and
E
(v) are dened in (3.11) and (3.12) below, respectively.
Let Mbe the route along the vertical line segment from mi T

to m+i T

.
We denote
(3.11)
T
(v) :=
1
2i
_
M
v
s
s
d s, m >
1
2
.
Then, let L be a simple curve from m + i T

to m i T

such that the

union of M and L is a simply closed curve and the index of the point s = 0
with respect to this union, denoted by L

, is equal to 1. Also, let R be a

simple curve from m + i T

to m i T

such that the union of M and R

is a simply closed curve and the index of the point s = 0 with respect to
this union, denoted by R

, is equal to 0. We also assume LR = so that

L

= M. Note that the union of R (where R is the route along R

with the opposite direction) and L is a simply closed curve. We dene
(3.12)
E
(v) :=
_

_
1
2i
_
R
v
s
s
d s, 0 < v < 1,
1

T/m
d u
1+u
2
, v = 1,
1
2i
_
L
v
s
s
d s, v > 1.
Note that s = 0 is the unique pole of the function
v
s
s
, at which the function
has a residue 1, in the whole complex plane. In the case v = 1, we justify
(3.10) by Cauchys argument principle, noting that the route direction of
R

is clockwise but the index of R

with respect to the pole s = 0 is 0. The

equality (3.10) in the case v = 1 may be validated by a direct computation.
For the details, one may refer to [20] or [33], because the computation there
in this case also suits for any m such that 0 < m 1. One may rewrite
(3.10) in the following form:
(3.13) H
1
(v) =
_

_
1
2i
_
R

v
s
s
d s =
1
2i
_
R

v
s
s
ds, 0 < v < 1;
1
2i
_
m+iT
miT
v
s
s
d s +
1

T/m
d u
1+u
2
, v = 1;
1
2i
_
L

v
s
s
d s, v > 1.
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 13
We recall the denition of (x) in (2.9) and start with m > 1 or under
the condition (i) in (3.8). We have from (2.9) and (3.10) that
(3.14) (x) =

n=1
H
1
_
x
n
_
_
(n) 1
_
=

n=1
_

T
_
x
n
_
+
E
_
x
n
__
_
(n) 1
_
.
From the denition of (x) in (2.9), the denition of H
1
(v) in (1.3), and
(3.13) without needing the formula in the case when v = 1 by our choice of
x N, with the denitions of M, L, R, L

, and R

in the paragraph before

(3.12), we see for x N that
(x) =
1
2i

n<x
_
(n) 1
_
_
L

_
x
n
_
s
s
d s
+
1
2i

n>x
_
(n) 1
_
_
R

_
x
n
_
s
s
ds
=
1
2i
_
L

x
s
s

n<x
(n) 1
n
s
d s +
1
2i
_
R

x
s
s

n>x
(n) 1
n
s
d s
=
1
2i
_
L

x
s
s
A(x; s) d s +
1
2i
_
R

x
s
s
B(x; s) d s,
(3.15)
where
(3.16) A(x; s) =

n<x
(n) 1
n
s
, B(x; s) =

n>x
(n) 1
n
s
,
for > 1, noting that A(x; s) is a nite sum and analytic in the whole com-
plex plane C and the series in the denition of B(x; s) converges absolutely
and uniformly in the half-plane 1 + for any > 0. Furthermore, we
have from (2.12)
(3.17) B(x; s) =

n=1
(n) 1
n
s
A(x; s) =

(s)
(s)
(s) A(x; s),
if x N, for > 1. One may use the last expression as the denition for the
function B(x; s) in the whole plane. Therefore, B(x; s) can be analytically
continued to the left side of = 1 as long as Z(s) is analytic as given in
(2.12) in the concerned region.
Now, we rearrange the integrals in (3.15) and acquire
(3.18) (x) =
1
(x) +
2
(x),
with
(3.19)
1
(x) =
1
2i
_
M
x
s
s
Z(s) d s,
(3.20)
2
(x) =
1
2i
_
L
x
s
s
A(x; s) d s +
1
2i
_
R
x
s
s
B(x; s) d s.
As for the integration routes, from now on we let C be the circle |s m| =
T

. We shall henceforth take L and R to be the left half counter-clockwise

and the right half clockwise of C, respectively. We may regard that both
points s = m i T

are, repeatedly, on both R and L as the values of

14 YUANYOU CHENG
denite integrals with regular integrands do not change with one single
point added or deleted.
We then consider the function C(x, y; s) dened by the sum below for
any x and y such that 0 < y < x:
(3.21) C(x, y; s) =

y<n<x
(n) 1
n
s
.
This function is a nite sum and analytic in the whole complex plane C.
From (3.16) and (3.21), we have
(3.22) A(x; s) = A(y; s) +C(x, y; s), B(y; s) = C(x, y; s) +B(x; s).
It follows from (3.18) with (3.19) and (3.20) that
(3.23) (x) (y) =
1
(x)
1
(y) +
2
(x)
2
(y),
with
(3.24)
1
(x)
1
(y) =
1
2i
_
M
x
s
y
s
s
Z(s) d s,
and
(3.25)
2
(x)
2
(y) =
1
2i
_
J
T,1
+ J
T,2
+ J
T,3
_
,
where
J
T,1
=
_
L
x
s
y
s
s
A(y; s) d s,
J
T,2
=
_
L
x
s
s
C(x, y; s) d s
_
R
y
s
s
C(x, y; s) d s,
J
T,3
=
_
R
x
s
y
s
s
B(x; s) d s.
(3.26)
We shall give the estimate for (3.24) in Section 4 and that for (3.25) in
Section 5 with the estimate of J
T,3
in Section 6.
4. The integral along the vertical line segment
using the density and Lindel of hypotheses
Right now, when we tackle problems without knowing the truth
of the Riemann hypothesis, its as if we have a screwdriver.
But when we have it, itll be more like a bulldozer. [35]
Peter C. Sarnak
In this section, we give upper bounds for the integral in (3.24) for the
estimate of the dierence
1
(x)
1
(y).
Recall from complex analysis that there are at most nitely many zeros
for any analytic function in a bounded regular region. By letting satisfy
(4.1) 0 <
log log x
log x
, x > e,
and be suciently small, we may assume that there are no zeros for the
Riemann zeta function in the rectangular strip where
1
2
<
1
2
+ and
|t| < T, with T as in (3.5). We let L
b
and L
u
be the horizontal line routes
from
1
2
+ i T

to mi T

and from m+i T

to
1
2
+ +i T

, respectively,
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 15
and, L
l
be the vertical line route f rom
1
2
+ +i T

to
1
2
+ i T

. We also
let L

b
and L

u
be the horizontal line routes from 1 i T

to mi T

and
from m + i T

to 1 + i T

, respectively, and, L

l
be the vertical line route
from 1 + i T

to 1 i T

. We denote
(4.2) N = M L
u
L
l
L
b
, N

= M L

u
L

l
L

b
.
We see that both N and N

are counter-clockwise simple curves. We remark

that in the critical strip 0 < < 1, the set of poles of the function

(s)
(s)
is
the same as that of the zeros of the Riemann zeta function.
We recall that

(s)
(s)
=
1
s 1
+

Z
_
1
s
+
1

_
+

n=1
_
1
s + 2n

1
2n
_
+ log(2) 1,
(4.3)
which may be found in any standard references, e.g., page 52 in [21], page
17 in [27], and page 52 in [33]. We see that the residue of
x
s
s
Z(s), or that of

x
s
s

(s)
(s)
, corresponding to each term
1
s
in (4.3) is
x

. Note that

(0)
(0)
=
log(2) from (4.3). Also, recall (1.6) and the functional equation for the
Riemann zeta function in the following form:
(4.4) (s) = 2
s

s1
sin
s
2
(1 s)(1 s),
(for this see, e.g., [33]). From these two equations, one deduces, as in [46], or
[33], that (0) =
1
2
. It follows that the residue of
x
s
s
Z(s) at s = 0 is equal
to

(0)
(0)
(0) = log(2) +
1
2
. Now, we recall the denition of
1
(x) in
(3.19).
To estimate
1
(x)
1
(y), we consider the integral in (3.24), inserting
the expression (2.12) for Z(s) in terms of

(s)
(s)
and (s). That is,
(4.5)
1
(x) =
_
m+i T
mi T
x
s
s

(s)
(s)
d s
_
m+i T
mi T
x
s
s
(s) d s.
We apply Cauchys Residue Theorem with the curves N

and N to the
above two integrals, respectively, getting
(4.6)
1
(x) =
1,1
+
1,2
log(2) +
1
2
,
with

1,1
=

Z: |()|T
x

1
2i
_
L

u
+L

l
+L

b
x
s
s

(s)
(s)
d s,

1,2
=
1
2i
_
Lu+L
l
+L
b
x
s
s
(s) d s.
(4.7)
Recalling that the estimates on the numbers N(, T) of zeros for the Rie-
mann zeta function for
1
2
and > 1 are dierent, we need to consider
16 YUANYOU CHENG
them separately. It follows from (4.6) and (4.7) that for x N, y N, and
x > y 1,
(4.8)
1
(x)
1
(y) = S
T,1
+S
T,2
+I
1
+I
2
,
where
S
T,1
=

Z: 1/2+, |()|T
x

,
S
T,2
=

Z: >1/2+, |()|T
x

,
(4.9)
which corresponds to the sum in (4.7), and
I
1
=
1
2i
_
L

u
+L

l
+L

b
x
s
y
s
s

(s)
(s)
d s,
I
2
=
1
2i
_
Lu+L
l
+L
b
x
s
y
s
s
(s) d s,
(4.10)
corresponding to the two integrals in (4.7), respectively.
To estimate the sums S
T,1
and S
T,2
dened in (4.9), we rst note for
any w > 1 that
w

= 1 + log w
_

0
w
v
d v,
1
2
+ ,
w

= w
1/2+
+ log w
_

1/2+
w
v
d v, >
1
2
+ ,
(4.11)
and
_

0
w
v
d v =
_
1/2+
0
w
v
_
1 H

(v)
_
dv,
1
2
+ ,
_

1/2+
w
v
d v =
_
1
1/2+
w
v
_
1 H

(v)
_
d v, >
1
2
+ ,
(4.12)
for each non-trivial zero = +i of the Riemann zeta function, recalling
that H

(u) is the Heaviside step function at the point with the half-
maximum convention in (1.3). Also, we notice for any 0 < u < v that

v
s
u
s
s

_
v
u

w
s1

d w =
_
v
u
w
1
dw (v u)w
1
, (4.13)
where we have used

_
b
a
f(x) d x

(b a) max
axb
|f(x)| and y w x.
We may use w
1
y
1
when 0 < < 1 and w
1
x
1
. It follows from
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 17
(4.13) that
|S
T,1
|
x y
y

Z: 1/2+, ||T
x

x y
y
_

Z: 1/2+, ||T
1 +J
T,1
log y
_
,
|S
T,2
|
x y
y

Z: >1/2+, ||T
x

x y
y
_
y
1/2+

Z: >1/2+, ||T
1 +J
T,2
log y
_
,
(4.14)
recalling (4.11), (4.12), and the design of T

in (3.5), where
J
T,1
=
_
1/2+
0
y
v

Z: 1/2+, ||T
_
1 H

(v)
_
d v,
J
T,2
=
_
1h(T)
1/2+
y
v

Z: >1/2+, ||T
_
1 H

(v)
_
d v.
(4.15)
Recalling from our assumption after (4.1) related to the choice of , there
are no zeros in the region that
1
2
<
1
2
+ and |t| T +1, it follows that

Z: 1/2, ||T
_
1 H

(v)
_

Z: 1/2, ||T
1
N(0, T) = N(T) <
T log T
2
,

Z: >1/2, ||T
_
1 H

(v)
_
= N(v, T) N(
1
2
+ ) Alog T,
(4.16)
where we also used (2.25) (using T 6) and (2.27) (using T T
0
), with
A = 8.734.
From our assumption in Lemma 1 that the Riemann zeta function does
not have zeros for > 1 h(t) with h(t) as in (2.16), for the expression
inside the parenthesis in (4.14), denoted by K
T,1
and K
T,2
, respectively, we
use log y
_
b
a
y
v
d v = y
b
y
a
for all b > a > 0, to obtain
K
T,1

1
2
T log T
_
1 + log y
_
1/2+
0
y
v
d v
_
=
1
2
y
1/2+
T log T,
K
T,2
Alog T
_
1 + log y
_
1h(T)
1/2+
y
v
dv
_
Ay
1h(T)
log T,
(4.17)
where we used Alog T(1 y
1/2+
) < 0, since y > 1. From this, we obtain
(4.18) S
T,1
+S
T,2

(xy)y
H(y)
y
_
A
y
H(y)+h(T)1
+
T
2y
H(y)1/2
_
log T.
We now estimate the integrals in (4.8) by dealing with each term in the
middle expression for Z(s) in (2.12) separately; i.e., consider each integral
of the integrands

(s)
(s)
and (s), respectively. For the function

(s)
(s)
, we
18 YUANYOU CHENG
follow the same routine as in the literature, e.g., from [13]; for the integrand
(s), we shall use the Lindel of hypothesis in the strong form of (2.28)
(proven in [11]).
To give the estimates on

(s)
(s)
, we rst quote Proposition 9.3 and item
(a) in Proposition 9.2 from [13] as Proposition 3 below.
Proposition 3. Let 1 2, t > 0, u > 0, and ( it) = 0. Then

( it)
( it)

Z: |t|u
_
1
2 + it

1
s
_
+
3
2
_
1 +
4
u
2
__
1
4
log(t
2
+ 4) + 1.483
_
+
3
t
2
+ 1.284.
(4.19)
Furthermore, the number of zeros of (s) such that | t| u is less than
_
4 + u
2
__
1
4
log
_
t
2
+ 4
_
+ 1.483

.
We remark here that in the proof of the last proposition, one uses (4.3),
which is valid for s = 1 and s = , Z and is suitable for our sake here,
and
(4.20)

n=1
_
1
s + 2n

1
2 + it + 2n
_

(2 )
2
24
,
which may be cited from (13) in [16] or (5.5) in [12]. We need this estimate
in the proof of item (c) in the next proposition.
We give the following estimate from Proposition 3.
Proposition 4. Let 1 2, T T
0
, and T

as dened in (3.5) with

u = 1.155. Then
(a)

(i T)
(iT)

6.159 log
2
T;
(b) For 12 < t T

(1it)
(1it)

2.999 log t + 10.241;

and
(c) For 0 t 12

(1it)
(1it)

19.172.
Proof. Note that

(it)
(it)

(+it)
(+it)

for , t such that ( + it) = 0. One

only needs to consider the case with the plus sign for each case.
By (4.19) in Proposition 3, one only needs to estimate the sum
(4.21)

|tn|u
_
1
sn

1
2+itn
_
,
since the other terms in (4.19) are already in explicit form. Note that, for

n
=
n
+ i
n
,
n
,
n
R,
(4.22)
1
|sn|
=
1
|n+i(tn)|
=
1

(n)
2
+(tn)
2

1
|tn|
.
Similarly,
(4.23)
1
|2+itn|

1
|tn|
.
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 19
To estimate the sum in (4.21), we only need to consider the sum on the
right hand side of the following inequality below, which is
(4.24)

|tn|u
_
1
+itn

1
2+itn
_

|tn|u
1
|tn|
.
Recalling the last statement in Proposition 3, one sees that there are at
most (4 + u
2
)[log(t
2
+ 4)/4 + 1.483] terms in (4.24). By the setting of T

as the associate of T
3
2
with respect to u in (3.1) and T in (3.5), one has
from (3.4) that
| T

|
u
2(4+u
2
)
_
log[(T3/2)
2
+4]/4+1.483}
,
for every T 3 < < T. Thus, each summand in the last expression in
(4.24) is less than
(4.25)
2(4+u
2
)(log[(T3/2)
2
+4]/4+1.483)
u
.
Since
1
|tn|

1
T
, it follows that

|T|u
_
1
+iTn

1
2+iTn
_

(4 + u
2
)
_
1
4
log(T
2
+ 4) + 1.483

2(4 + u
2
)
_
1
4
log[(T 3/2)
2
+ 4] + 1.483
_
u
6.159 log T,
(4.26)
by our choice u = 1.155, as T T
0
so that log(T
2
+4) = 2 log T+log(1+
4
T
2
<
(2 +
4
T
2
log T
) log T < 2.001 log T, where we have used log(1 + x) < x for
0 < x < 1, and log((T 3/2)
2
+ 4) < 2.00001 log T similarly.
One proves (b) and (c) in similar ways. For (b), replacing (4.22) and
(4.23) by
1
| 1 + it
n
|

1
| 1
n
|
1, and
1
|2 + it
n
|

1
|2
n
|
1,
and noting that log(t
2
+ 4) 2 log t + log(1 + 4/12
2
) 2 log t + 0.028. For
(c), one replaces the upper bound in (4.20) by
5
4
and notes that the terms
of the sum in (4.21) are zero since there are no zeros of (s) with 0 t 12
for the integral over t, and log(t
2
+ 4) log(12
2
+ 4) 4.998.
To estimate J
1
, as given by (4.10), we recall (4.13) with 1 = 2,
Proposition 4, and the denition of L

l
before (4.2), getting for the integral
on L

l
,
_
L

l
x
s
y
s
s

(s)
(s)
d s
x y
y
2
_
T
T

(1 + it)
(1 + it)

d t

x y
y
2
_
38.344
_
12
0
d t + 2
_
T
12
[2.999 log t + 10.241] d t
_
<
6.002(x y)T log T
y
2
,
(4.27)
because the term in parenthesis is bounded by 6.002T log T as seen by using
_
t
0
log u d u = t(log t 1), T T
0
with the value of T
0
given in (2.14),
20 YUANYOU CHENG
T 3 T

< T from (3.5), and 2 2.999 T

log T

is the major term in the

sum of terms on the right hand side of the last but one inequality. For the
integral along with L

u
and L

b
, one has

1
2i
_
L

u
x
s
y
s
s

(s)
(s)
d s +
1
2i
_
L

b
x
s
y
s
s

(s)
(s)
ds

(x y)y
m
y
_
m
1

( + iT

)
( + iT

d
12.325(x y)y
m
log
2
T
y
,
(4.28)
where we used the bound a) in Proposition 4. We get the estimate for I
2
similarly with
(4.29)
1
2i
_
L
l
(x
s
y
s
)
s
(s) d s
x y
2y
1/2
_
T
T
|( + i t) d t
B(xy)T
1+b
2y
1/2
,
by (2.28), and
(4.30)
1
2i
_
L
b
+Lu
(x
s
y
s
)
s
(s) d s
2.001 B(x y)T
b
y
1m
log y
.
using (4.13) with the inequality (4.29) used on both cases for L
b
and L
u
.
We conclude from (4.10), (4.29), (4.30), (4.27), (4.28), and (4.30) that
I
1
+I
2

(xy) y
m
T
y
_
B T
b
log y
+
2.001 BT
b
2T
1b
+
6.002 log T
y
1+m
+
12.325 log
2
T
T
_
< B
(xy) y
m
T
1+b
y log y
<
B

(xy)y
m
y log
11/18
y
,
(4.31)
with b =
17
47
, and
(4.32) B

= 1.001 B, if we take T = log

1/3
y.
With S
T,1
and S
T,2
dened in (4.9), I
1
and I
2
dened as those two
integrals in (4.10), respectively, the bounds (4.18), and (4.31), from (4.8)
we obtain, for x > y, T = log
1/3
y, recalling y x
1
in the statement of
Proposition 2,
|
1
(x)
1
(y)|
=
xy
y
_
y
1h(T)
_
A+
T
2y
1h(T)1/2
_
log T
+ y
m
_
2.001BT
b
2
+
BT
log y
+
12.325 log
2
T

+
6.002 T log T
y
1+m
_

xy
y
_
1.001 Ay
1h(T)
log T +
1.001 B

y
m
T
b

,
(4.33)
where A = 8.734 is from (2.27) and B = 59 and b =
17
47
is from (2.28).
Recall the denition of m in (3.9) with subject to the restriction 0 < <
h(T) log log y
log y
and that of A, , and in (2.34), we get
(4.34)
1
(x)
1
(y)
2.0005 A(xy) log

y
y

.
This nishes the estimate for (3.24).
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 21
5. The integral along the circle using
the assumption in Proposition 2
The failure of the Riemann hypothesis would create havoc in
the distribution of prime numbers. This fact alone singles out
the Riemann hypothesis as the main open question of prime
number theory. [4]
Enrico Bombieri
In this section, we estimate J
T,1
, J
T,2
, and J
T,3
dened in (3.26), where
A(x; s) and B(x; s) are dened in (3.17), C(x, y; s) is dened (3.21), and
L and R are taken, respectively, as the left half counter-clockwise and the
right half counter-clockwise of the circle |s m| = T

with
1
2
< m < 1, as
described before (3.6), to obtain the upper bound for
2
(x)
2
(y). We
remark here that |w
s1
| = w
1
is an increasing function of for
1
2
< < 1
whenever 0 < w < 1.
We are going to use the summation by parts as below. For references,
one may see [27], [30], [34], or [36].
Lemma 3. Let g be an arithmetic function from N to C. For any 0 < u < v
and f be a function with continuous derivative from [u, v] to C. Then we
have
(5.1)

u<nv
g(n)f(n) = G(v)f(v) G(u)f(u)
_
v
u
G(z)f

(z) d z,
where G(z) =

nz
g(n).
It is straightforward, as exhibited at the end of this article, that con-
vergence of the series in Corollary 1 at the end of Section 2 implies the
Riemann hypothesis after we prove the corollary by using Theorem 4. How-
ever, we can not establish the conditional convergence of the series (2.12)
for
1
2
< 1 without the Riemann hypothesis. We shall somehow alter
the problem by handling the integral J
T,3
as dened in (3.26) and using
the regularity of B(x; s) using the maximum modulus principle in Section
6 instead. Right now, we note that the integrand in J
T,3
does not have any
poles in the open region containing M and R.
We use the summation by parts from above Lemma 3 with g(n) = (n)
1 and f(n) =
1
n
s
. Noticing f

(n) =
s
n
s+1
in the cases u =
1
2
and v = y,
u = y and v = x, and u = x and v , respectively, for the functions
A(y; s), B(x; s), and C(x, y; s) dened in (3.16) and (3.21), we have
A(y; s) =
(y)
y
s
+ s
_
y
0.9999
(z)
z
s+1
d z,
C(x, y; s) =
(x)
x
s

(y)
y
s
+ s
_
x
y
(z)
z
s+1
d z,
B(x; s) =
(x)
x
s
+ s
_

x
(z)
z
s+1
dz,
(5.2)
if lim
z
(z)
z
s
= 0. In fact, the last limit would hold if lim
z
(z)
z
m
= 0,
recalling the restriction of m in (3.9), which is valid where > m, or
if (x) = O(x
m
) for some constant 0 < < m. The last condition,
22 YUANYOU CHENG
however, is not satised even in the case when m is replaced by its upper
bound 1, until, e.g., the Riemann hypothesis is proved. Therefore, we can
not proceed this way for the main purpose of this article in proving the
Riemann hypothesis.
Let us thus proceed dierently.
To estimate J
T,1
, we rst notice that m on every point of L and
(5.3) |L| =
_
m
2
+ T
2

< 3.142 T,
from 1.001 < 3.142 with |s| < 1.001T from (3.6). We have
(5.4) J
T,1
= J
T,1,0
+ J
T,1,1
,
with
(5.5) J
T,1,0
=
_
L
x
s
y
s
s
(y)
y
s
d s, J
T,1,1
=
_
L
_
x
s
y
s
_
_
y
x
0
(z)
z
s
d s,
from (3.26) and (5.2).
By (4.13) with u = 1 and v =
x
y
, we get
x
s
y
s
sy
s
=
(x/y)
s
1
s

xy
y
. with
u =
y
z
and v =
x
z
. Using the assumption (2.32) in Proposition 2 and (5.3),
we get
J
T,1,0
= (y)
_
L
_
x
y
_
s
1
s
d s
D(x y) y
1H(y)
T log

y
y
.
(5.6)
To estimate J
T,1,1
, we have
x
s
y
s
s z
s

(xy)y

y z

(xy)y
m
y z
m
, by (4.13), as
_
y
z
_

_
y
z
_
m
for
1
2
z y < x, on L. Recall the estimates in (2.11); also,
we recall from (2.26) that (z) Dz
1H(z)
log

z for x
1
x < y with x
1
dened in Theorem 4 in Section 2, getting
_
x
1
x
0
(z) d z
z
m+1
1.154
1.9997060.9999
0.9999
1+m
< 1.155,
_
y
x
1
(z) dz
z
m+1
D log

y
_
y
x
1
d z
z
m+H(z)
D log

y
_
1
y
H(y)+
log log y
log y
h(T)

1
x
H(y)+
log log y
log y
h(T)
1
_
,
(5.7)
as
1
0.9999
1+m
< 1.0002
1+m
< 1.0002
2
< 1.0005 and 1.154 1.0005 < 1.155
(where in the rst inequality
1
0.9999
< 1.0002 with m at least 1 is needed
and in the second inequality m < 1 is used), m+H(z) = 1+H(z)+
log log y
log y

h(T) > 1 + H(y) +
log log y
log y
h(T) 1 +
log log y
log y
from the monotonous
decreasing of H(x) for x [0.9999, ), recalling that m is taken as in (3.9).
It follows that
(5.8)
_
y
x
1
(z)
z
m+1
d z 1.0001Dlog

y,
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 23
recalling the assumption H(y) h(T) in the proposition, noticing that
y
log log y
log y = log

y, and x
1
> 1. From (3.6), we obtain
J
T,1,1
=
_
L
_
x
s
y
s
_
_
y
x
0
(z)
z
s+1
d z d s
=
_
y
x
0
(z)
z
_
L
_
x
z
_
s

_
y
z
_
s
s
s d s d z

(x y)y
m
y
_
y
x
0
(z)
z
m+1
|s|| d s| d z

3.143(x y)y
m
T
y
_
y
x
0
(z) d z
z
m+1

3.143(x y)y
m
T
y
_
1.154
_
x
1
x
0
(z) d z
z
m+1
+
_
y
x
1
(z) d z
z
m+1
_

3.143(x y)y
m
T
y
_
2.308
x
1
x
0
x
m+1
0
+ Dlog

z
_
.
(5.9)
Concluding from (5.6) and (5.9), we obtain
(5.10) J
T,1

3.1524 A(xy) log

y
y

,
recalling 0 < <
3
2
from Proposition 2 and m = 1 h(T) +
log log y
log y
with
0 < < 1 and noticing that y
log log y
log y
= log y, where for the estimate we
interchanged the order of the integration in the double integral, which we
can, the integrand being bounded absolutely, using our assumption on (x)
in Proposition 1. Recall the denitions of A, , and in (2.34).
We remark here that the corresponding integral
_

x
(x)
z
s+1
d z for s L
may not be convergent for any < 1 until we prove that (x) = O(x
1
)
for some constant > 0. Therefore, we shall deal with the estimate of J
T,3
in a dierent way, as explained in Section 6.
We also need a dierent approach for estimating J
T,2
in (3.26) with L
given after (3.20). We write
(5.11) J
T,2
= J
T,2,0
+ J
T,2,1
J
T,2,2
,
where
J
T,2,0
=
__
L
x
s
_
x
y
(u)
u
s+1
d u ds
_
R
y
s
_
x
y
(u)
u
s+1
d u d s
_
,
J
T,2,1
=
(x)
s
__
L
1 ds
_
R
y
s
x
s
d s
_
,
J
T,2,2
=
(y)
s
__
L
x
s
y
s
ds
_
R
1 d s
_
.
To evaluate J
T,2,0
, we rst change the order of integration to acquire
(5.12) J
T,2,0
=
_
x
y
(u)
u
__
L
_
x
u
_
s
d s
_
R
_
y
u
_
s
ds
_
d u.
24 YUANYOU CHENG
The justication for the interchange of the order of the integration will
become clear below when we have the bound (5.19) for J
T,2,0
. We then use
the polar coordinates with
(5.13) s = m+ re
i
, where r =
_
m
2
+ T
2

T
_
m
2
T
2
+ 1 1.001 T,
recalling T 3 T

< T from (3.5), and

(5.14)

2

5
2
,
and then change the polar coordinates with
(5.15) (A) = +

2
, and (B) = +
3
2
,
in the rst and second integrals, respectively. The second factor in the in-
tegrand in the last expression on the right hand side of (5.12) becomes
g(x, y, u; ) := i r
__
3/2
/2
_
x
u
_
m+re
i
e
i
d

_
3/2
5/2
_
y
u
_
m+re
i
e
i
d
_
= r
_

0
_
_
x
u
_
m+ire
i

_
y
u
_
mire
i
_
e
i
d = r
_

0
G(x, y, u; )e
i
d ,
(5.16)
where G(x, y, u; ) is the rst factor in the integrand of the integral before
the last. We have
G(x, y, u; ) = (G
0
+ G
1
+ G
2
) + i (G
3
+ G
4
)
=
_
x
u
_
mr sin
cos
_
r cos log
x
u
_

_
y
u
_
m+r sin
cos
_
r cos log
y
u
_
+ i
_
_
x
u
_
mr sin
sin
_
r cos log
x
u
_

_
y
u
_
m+r sin
sin
_
r cos log
y
u
_
_
,
where G
0
, G
1
, G
2
, G
3
, and G
4
are real-valued function of r and dened
as above in this paragraph, especially, 0 .
As
y
u
< 1 <
x
u
from y < u < x, we see for x N as we stipulated after
(3.1) that, using 0 ,
G
0
:=
_
x
u
_
mr sin

_
y
u
_
m+r sin

x
m
y
m
u
m

x y
y
1m
u
m
<
x y
y
2m
.
Note that 0 <
xu
u
<
xy
y
, since y < u, and 0 <
uy
u
<
uy
y
<
xy
y
.
Using 0 log(1 + w) < w and w < log(1 w) 0 for 0 w < 1,
0 1 cos(w) <
1
2
w
2
for 0 w < 1, one has
G
1
:=
_
x
u
_
mr sin
_
cos
_
r cos log
x
u
_
1
_

0.502(x y)
2
x
m
T
2
y
2+m
,
with log
x
u

xu
u
; moreover,
(5.17) cos
_
r cos log
x
u
_
1
1
2

r cos log
x
u

r
2
(xu)
2
2u
2
<
0.502(xy)
2
y
2
,
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 25
using the inequality r 1.001 T from (5.13) and noting
1.001
2
2
< 0.502.
Similarly, we have
G
2
:=
_
y
u
_
m+r sin
_
1 cos
_
r cos log
y
u
_
_

0.502(x y)
2
y
m
T
2
y
2+m
.
Also, noting that sin(w) < |w| for |w| < 1 and x
m
1.116y
m
, as
1
1.116
m
<
1.116 for m < 1, by our design after (3.1), one gets
G
3
:=
_
x
u
_
mr sin
sin
_
r cos log
x
u
_

1.003(x y)T
y
1m
u
m
,
G
4
:=
_
y
u
_
m+r sin
sin
_
r cos log
y
u
_

1.003(x y)T
y
1m
u
m
,
noting that 0.502 1.116 < 0.561. We get
|G(x, y, u; )| = |G
0
| +|G
1
| +|G
2
| +|G
3
| +|G
4
|

(xy)y
m
y u
m
(0.448T
2
+ 2.006T + 1.116) <
(xy)y
m
T
2
2y u
m
,
(5.18)
as T T
0
, noting
x
m
y
< 1.116, 0.5022
xy
y
1+m
<
1.0041.116
e
3/2
< 0.448, as y x
1
from the remark after (3.1), and
|J
T,2,0
|
(x y)T
2
2y
1m
_
x
y
(u)
u
1+m
du.
Recall that (u) u
1H(u)
log
2
u for u 1.999706 from our assumption in
Proposition 1. For the last integral, we have, using our choice of x and y:
_
x
y
(u)
u
1+m
d u
(x y)x
1H(x)m
log
2
x
y
,
from which with m = h(T) + , we get
(5.19) |J
T,2,0
|
(x y)
2
x
h(T)H(x)
T
2
log
2
x
2y
2m

0.00005 A(xy) log

x
x

.
This estimate is even smaller than those for J
T,1
and J
T,3
, the latter will
only be given in Section 6.
The estimates for J
T,2,1
and J
T,2,2
can be done in a similar way as those
for J
2,0
. First, we have
g
T,2,1
(x, y, u; ) = ir
__
3/2
/2
e
i
d
_
3/2
5/2
_
y
x
_
m+re
i
d
_
,
= r
_

0
_
1
_
y
x
_
mire
i
_
e
i
d ,
(5.20)
where g
T,2,1
(x, y, u; ) is the expression in the parentheses of the denition
for J
T,2,1
after (5.11). This tells us we may replace u by x in g(x, y, u; ) as
in (5.16), to get the expression for g
T,2,1
(x, y, u; ). A similar result is also
valid for J
T,2,2
with u replaced by y in the process. However, in the estimate
of J
T,2,1
, we have 0 corresponding to that to G
1
and G
3
, while that regarding
26 YUANYOU CHENG
J
T,2,2
corresponding to G
2
and G
4
are equal to 0 as log
x
u
= log 1 = 0 and
log
u
y
= log 1 = 0. Checking with the estimate for J
T,2,0
in details, we obtain
|J
T,2,1
|
(x y)
2
x
h(T)H(x)
T
2
log
2
x
4y
2m

0.000025 A(xy) log

x
x

,
|J
T,2,2
|
(x y)
2
x
h(T)H(x)
T
2
log
2
x
4y
2m

0.000025 A(xy) log

x
x

.
(5.21)
From the denition of J
T,2
in (5.11) with the estimates in (5.20) and (5.21),
we obtain
(5.22) J
T,2

0.0001 A(xy) log

x
x

.
Using (3.25) and concluding from (5.10), (5.22), and (6.4) below, we
obtain
|
2
(x)
2
(y)|
xy
y
_
Dy
1H(y)
log
2
y + 4y
m
T
_
+
(xy)
2
x
1H(x)m
T
2
log
2
x
y
2m
+
3.142(xy)y
m
T
y
(6.159 log
2
T + BT
b
+
1.001DT log
2
x
x
m+H(x)1
)

1.0019 A(xy) log

x
x

.
(5.23)
Here, we have used that
1
2
(|J
T,1
| + |J
T,2
| + |J
T,3
|)
1
2
(3.1524 + 0.0001 +
3.1421) and
3.1524+0.0001+3.1421
2
< 1.0019.
6. Proof of Proposition 2: Analytic continuation
... there is a sense in which we can give a one-line nontechnical
statement of the Riemann hypothesis: The primes have music
in them. [2]
M. V. Berry and J. P. Keating
In this section, we give the estimate for J
T,3
in (6.4), which is needed in
(5.23), and nish the proof of Proposition 2.
The pivot is that we deal with J
T,3
without assuming the convergence
of the series in (2.9), the second series in (3.16), or third integral in the
expression of B(x; s) in (5.2), for the values of s we are consider. Because
of the lack of the above assumption, we use the expression for B(x; s) in
(3.17) instead. Recalling that we are estimating J
T,3
under the assumption
of Proposition 2, there are no zeros for the Riemann zeta-function (s) in
the region for > 1 h(t) and |t| < . Therefore, the function Z(s) =

(s)
(s)
(s) is analytic in the same region as we remarked after (3.17), so
that B(x; s) is analytic, as A(x; s) is well-dened and analytic on the whole
complex plane being the nite sum dened in (3.16).
We recall (3.16) with the expression of A(x; s) in (5.2) with the estimate
of A(y; s) for y replaced by x in (5.6) and use the upper bound in item a) of
Proposition 4 in Section 4 for

(s)
(s)
and that in (2.28) for (s). From (3.17)
we then have
(6.1) B(x; s)
1.001DT log
2
x
x
m+H(x)1
+ 6.159 log
2
T + BT
b
,
with B = 59, b =
17
47
, and D = 10.05.
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 27
Without the above convergence assumed, we describe the rationale for
us to deal with the estimating of J
T,3
in an alternative way.
Suppose that both C and D are simple closed curves such that the func-
tion f(s) is regular in an open region containing the union C D. By
Cauchys residue theorem, one sees that
(6.2)
_
C(D)
f(s) ds = 0, therefore,
_
C
f(s) d s =
_
D
f(s) ds.
Recall that the routes M, L, R, L

, and, R

described between (3.10)

and (3.12) are all route-functions of the variable m dened in (3.9). We may
denote these route-functions by M(m), L(m), R(m), L

(m), and, R

(m) ex-
plicitly. Especially, M(m) is dened before (3.11) and L(m) and R(m) are
dened after (3.20). By the rationale explained as above, we may replace
L(m
(1)
) and R(m
(1)
), with respect to the variable m = m
(1)
, by L(m
(2)
)
and R(m
(2)
), with respect to the variable m = m
(1)
and m = m
(2)
, simulta-
neously. This means that we may switch from (3.8) (i) to (ii) as long as the
Riemann zeta function does not have zeros for 1 h(T) and |t| T.
We quote Lemma 1 from [17].
Proposition 4. Let B(x; s) be dened in (3.17). Assume that the Riemann
zeta function does not have zeros in the region > 1 h(t). Assume that
R T
0
and 1 h(R) < m < 1. In the region m and |s m| R, we
have
(6.3)
x
s
y
s
s
B(x; s) (x y)w
m1
sup
|t|R

B(x; m+ i t)

,
for at least one suitable w such that y w x and t T
0
.
This proposition is sucient but not necessary, because we may revise
the route R to be route from the rst vertex to the fourth vertex on the
three sides of the rectangle with vertexes m+iT
a
, m+ +iT
a
, m+ iT
a
,
and miT
a
, and let tends to 0 after we nish the process of estimating.
We would still get the same estimate in (6.4) below.
We can not use an approach similar to the one we used in (5.2) for the
estimate of J
T,1
, though, we can use the denition of J
T,3
in (3.26) with
(4.13) for the factor
x
s
y
s
s
and the upper bound in (6.1) for the estimate of
B(x; s) to obtain
J
T,3

(xy)y
m
y
|B(x; s)|| ds|

3.142T (xy)y
m
y
_
R
_
6.159 log
2
T + BT
b
+
1.001D T log
2
x
x
m+H(x)1
_

3.1421 A(xy) log

x
x

, with A as in Proposition 2,
(6.4)
and notice that |R| < 3.142T, similar to (5.3), which is valid as long as the
function Z(s) is analytic in the open region, in which we have > 1 h(t)
and |t| < , because the closed half disk encircled by M and R is situated
in this open region. This is the justication of the estimate in (6.4).
We nish the proof of Proposition 2 from (3.23), with (4.34) for (3.24),
and (5.23) for (3.25), with 2.005 + 1.0019 < 3.003.
28 YUANYOU CHENG
7. Proof of Proposition 1 from Proposition 2
and Proof of Theorem 4 using Lemma 1
It would be very discouraging if somewhere down the line you
could ask a computer if the Riemann hypothesis is correct and
it said, Yes, it is true, but you wont be able to understand
the proof. [32]
Ronald L. Graham
Recall the denitions of H
j
(x) for x [1.999706, ) and h
j
(t) for t [0, )
in (2.15) and (2.16) for all j N + 2. First of all, we prove Proposition 1
from Proposition 2 in Section 2.
Proof of Proposition 1 from Proposition 2. In the rst part of this proof, we
assume that x N.
We use induction on x discretely. If x is small enough, we know from
the denition of H
3
(x) in (2.15) and the denition of X
3
that H
3
(x) =
1
2
for 1.999706 x < X
3
. Since (x) Dx
1/2
log
2
x from (2.21) with D =
9 (9 < 10.05) in Theorem 4, we see that (x) Dx
1H
j
(x)
log
2
x, recalling
the denition of H
j
(x) for every j N + 2 in (2.15) and noticing that
H
j
(x) = H
3
(x) =
1
2
for every j N + 2 whenever 1.999706 x < X
3
.
Now, we may assume that x [X
3
, ) and let j N + 2 be xed such
that the assumption in Proposition 1 is valid. We let
(7.1) L
(0)
=
_
log xlog X
3
log x/2+log 2log(2x
1/2
1)
_
+ 2,
for x X
3
. We notice that L
(0)
2 from
log xlog X
3
log x/2+log 2log(2x
1/2
1)
0 as
x X
3
. For some suitable L N subject to 1 L L
(0)
, we choose
(7.2) x
L+1
= x; x
l+1
x
1/2
l+1
< x
l
< x
l+1

1
2
x
1/2
l+1
,
such that x
l
N for all l = L, L1, . . ., 1, in the case x
L+1
N. Generally
speaking, the choice of x
l
, subject to the inequalities in (7.2), is not unique;
therefore, the value of L is not unique either. We claim that x
1
< X
3
x
2
for at least one L such that 2 L L
(0)
with at least one sequence x
1
, x
2
,
. . ., x
L
, x
L+1
= x, where x
l
satises the inequalities in (7.2) for every l = L,
L 1, . . ., 1. We note here that x
1
> x
2
x
1/2
2
> X
3
X
1/2
3
> 1.999706 by
the denition of X
3
(> 93) before the statement of Theorem 4, if our claim
is valid.
We prove this claim by contradiction. Assume on the contrary that for
any L = 2, 3, . . ., L
(0)
, with x
1
restricted by (7.2), we would still have
x
1
X
3
; especially, that would be the case when we replace L by L
(0)
in
(7.2). On the other hand, it is not too dicult to see that
(7.3) x
l

_
1
1
2x
1/2
l+1
_
x
l+1

_
1
1
2x
1/2
_
x, for all l = 1, 2, . . ., L
(0)
,
with the inequality strict for l < L
(0)
in (7.3). Therefore, we have
(7.4) x
1
<
_
1
1
2x
1/2
_
L
(0)
x
L
(0)
+1
=
_
1
1
2x
1/2
_
L
(0)
x,
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 29
as L
(0)
> 1 from the denition (7.1). From the assumption x
1
X
3
on the
contrary, it would follow that
(7.5)
_
1
1
2x
1/2
_
L
(0)
x > X
3
, or log
_
1
1
2x
1/2
_
L
(0)
< log x log X
3
,
from x
1
X
3
, which contradicts to our design of L
(0)
. Therefore, our claim
is validated, or 1.999706 x
1
< X
3
for some L N subject to 1 L L
(0)
.
We are going to use induction on l instead of using the induction on x,
which is sucient if we prove the following equivalent replacement. That is,
we use induction to prove that
(7.6) (x
l
) Dx
1H
j+1
(x
l
)

l
log
2
x
l
, x
l
X
3
,
for all

l = 1, 2, . . ., L, under the assumption of Proposition 1 or (x)
Dx
1H
j
(x)
log
2
x for x X
3
.
We note that if

l = 1 then 1.999706 x
1
< X
3
. From (2.23) we have
that (7.6) is valid with D replaced by D
0
= 9. Thus, (7.6) is valid for

l = 1.
We then assume that (7.6) is valid for

l = l, where 1 l < L. we want
to prove that (7.6) is valid for

l = l + 1.
We may denote x
l+1
= x and x
l
= y, which satises the requirement
for x and y in the previous discussion such that x X
3
and y x
1
where
93.453 < X
3
< 93.454, noting that if x N, then xx
1/2
N. As mentioned
on the beginning of Section 3, we have assumed up to now that y N and
x N. Note that
1
2
x < y < x from (3.1) (since 1.116 >
1
2
). We have
j log log x
log x
>
1
log
5/4
y
for each j N + 2 and, using (2.15)
_
1 +
xy
y
_
H
j
(y)

1 +
xy
y log
5/4
y
. Also, we recall T
v
= log y from (4.32) with v = 3 as described
after (2.16) and notice that H
j
(y) < H
j
(x), for x > y y
0
, where j N+2.
It follows that
x
H
j
(x)
y
H
j
(y)
1
xy
y log
5/4
y
and for the estimate (2.33) in Proposition
2, we have 3.003 A < 30.19 from the denition of A in (2.34), and
(7.7)
30.19 (x y) log

y
y

D
_
x
H
j
(x)
log
3/2
x y
H
j
(y)
log
3/2
y
_
,
where D = 10.05 as in (2.30). We take =
3
2
and =
1
3
. Noting that
log T
log log y
=
1
3
, we get =
3
2
, for x y X
j
. Therefore, (7.6) is valid when

l = l + 1.
Conclude by induction, we see (7.6) is valid for all

l such that 1

l L.
However, (7.6) for

l = L is the same as that Proposition 1 is valid for x N
such that X
3
x < .
In the second part of this proof, we remove the requirement that x N,
in which case we have chosen y N for our consideration. We now suppose
x N. Recall that x x
1
= 1.999706. If x = 2, we may use the direct
computation to see that Proposition 1 is valid. Then, we assume that x 3.
Note that (x) =
1
2
[(x ) + (x + )] for any 0 < < 1, because (v)
is actually a constant for v (x 1, x) and v (x, x + 1) as (x) is
a sum function of an arithmetic function. But, from above we know that
(x) D(x)
1H
j+1
(x) log
2
(x) and (x+) D(x+)
1H
j+1
(x+
) log
2
(x + ). We notice that lim
0
[(x )
1H
j+1
(x ) log
2
(x ) + (x +
)
1H
j+1
(x+)
log
2
(x+)] = 2x
1H
j+1
xlog
2
x, by the continuity of the function
30 YUANYOU CHENG
1
2
_
(x ) + (x + )

at x. This nishes the proof of Proposition 1, as

(x) =
1
2
[(x 0) + (x + 0)].
We have the following corollary from Proposition 1.
Corollary 2. For j N + 2, if (x) Dx
1H
j
(x)
log
2
x for x X
3
, then
(x) Dx
1H
j+1
(x)
log
2
x for x X
3
.
Proof. First of all, we notice that (x) Dx
1H
j
(x)
log
2
x for x
1
x < X
3
,
with x
1
and X
3
dened before the statement of Theorem 4 in Section 2, is
also valid from (2.23), with D replaced by D
(0)
= 97 < D. Therefore, the
assumption in Proposition 1 is satised.
By Proposition 1, one sees that the Riemann zeta function does not
have any zeros in the region that > 1 h
j
(t), 0 t < , recalling the
denition of h
j
(t) as a two pieces piecewise dierentiable functions in the
intervals [0, T
j
) and [T
j
, ), from the assumption that (x) Dx
1H
j
(x)
for x X
3
, noticing that D
0
< D. By Proposition 1, one justies that
(x) Dx
1H
j+1
(x)
log
2
x for x X
3
.
Proof of Theorem 4. First of all, we notice that
(7.8) [X
3
, ) =

j=4
[X
j1
, X
j
).
This union is disjoint, as X
j
is a monotonously strictly increasing sequence.
Therefore, x [X
J1
, X
J
) for a unique J N + 3.
Then, we we note that H
J
(x) =
1
2
for X
J1
x < X
J
by the denition
of H
j
(x) in (2.15). In order to prove that (x) Dx
1/2
log
2
x for x
[X
J1
, X
J
), we may instead prove that (x) Dx
1H
j
(x)
log
2
x by induction
on j N + 2 for all 3 j J.
Recalling (2.20), we know that (x) Dx
1H
j
(x)
log
2
x for j = 3, with
D replaced by D
0
= 9. Using the above corollary as the induction step, we
see that (x) Dx
1H
J
(x)
log
2
x.
Conclude that we have proved Theorem 4.
8. Afterwords
The greatest problem for mathematicians now is probably the
Riemann hypothesis. But its not a problem that can be simply
stated.
Andrew J. Wiles
As direct consequences of Theorem 2, we now have many assertions being
justied. For example, the following series in the representation for the
reciprocal of the Riemann zeta function
(8.1)
1
(s)
=

n=1
(n)
n
s
is convergent for >
1
2
, where (n) is the Mobius function. Let
(8.2) (s) =

s
2

G
(s)
Z
(s),
with

G
(s) =
s
2

_
s
2
_
and
Z
(s) = (s 1) (s).
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 31
The next statement concerns with the function dened in (8.2). We have
(8.3)

(s)
(s)
> 0,
see [3].
In group theory, whenever n is suciently large, we have
(8.4) log g(n) <
1
_
Li(n)
,
where g(n) is the maximal order of elements in the symmetric group S
n
of
degree n, see [3] again.
Also, the estimate on Titchmarshs function
(8.5) arg (s)

+it
1+it
= O
_
log t
log log t
_
, for
1
2
1,
is justied.
We mention two results in number theory here, which are not approxi-
mately but exact ones from the Riemann hypothesis. Robin showed in [48]
that
(8.6) (n) < e

nlog log n,
for n 5040. Lagarias proved in [41] that
(8.7) (n) H
n
+ e
Hn
log H
n
,
for n 1 with the equality only for n = 1, where
(8.8) H
n
= 1 +
1
2
+
1
3
+ . . . +
1
n
.
Also, the existence of Mills constant is validated now, see [6]. For other
statements equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis, see, e.g., [3] (pp. 4554).
At the end of this article, we conrm Corollary 1. Recalling Lemma 3
with g(n) = (n) 1, f(n) =
1
n
s
, (5.1), and, u = 1 and v , one gets
(8.9) Z(s) = s
_

1
(u)
u
s+1
du.
It follows from the estimate |(u)| = O
_
u
1/2
log
2
u
_
for suciently large u
as in (2.30) that
|Z(s)| |s|
_

1

(u)

u
1+
d u.
The last integral is convergent when >
1
2
. This concludes the proof of
Corollary 1.
The result in Corollary 1 is one of the main points for the insight in
the writing of this article. The issue of convergence is not a plain one, as
one may see that similar series involving arithmetic functions may not be
convergent as discussed, e.g., in [37].
To conclude this article, let us say that some dicult-looking problems
in mathematics may not be so tough to deal with if we somehow nd a neat
way to tackle them. The Riemann hypothesis is one of such problems, one
may also see [12] in dealing with the density hypothesis and [11] with the
result on the Lindel of hypothesis.
32 YUANYOU CHENG
References
1. B. Bagchi, Recurrence in Topological Dynamics and the Riemann hy-
pothesis, Acta Math. Hungar. 50, pp. 227-240, 1987.
2. M. V. Berry and J. P. Keating, The Riemann zeros and eigenvalue
asymptotics, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Review,
Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 236266, 1999.
3. P. Borwein, S. Choi, B. Rooney, and, A. Weirathmueller, The Riemann
hypothesis, Springer, New York, 2007.
4. E. Bombieri, Problems of the Millennium: the Riemann Hypothesis,
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann Hypothesis/riemann.
pdf
5. R. P. Brent, On the zeros of the Riemann zeta function in the critical
strip, Math. Comp. 33, no. 148, pp. 136137, 1979.
6. C. Caldwell and Y. Cheng, Determining Mills Constant and a Note on
Honakers Problem, Integer sequences, Article 05.4.1, Vol. 8, 2005.
7. B. Cipra, A prime case of chaos, Whats Happening in the Mathemat-
ical Sciences, 4, pp. 217, 1999.
8. K. Chandrasekharan, Arithmetical Functions, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York, 1970.
9. Y. Cheng, M. Hassini, and G. Fox, Analytic implications from the prime
number theorem, submitted to Transactions of the American Mathe-
matical Society, 2013.
10. Y. Cheng and S. Graham, Estimates on the Riemann zeta function,
Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, 34 (4), pp. 12611280, 2004.
11. Y. Cheng, J. Wang, and S. Albeverio, Proof of the Lindel of hypothesis,
submitted to Acta Arithmetica, 2013.
12. Y. Cheng, S. Albeverio, Proof of the density hypothesis, Submitted to
Journal of Number Theory, 2012.
13. Y. Cheng, Estimates on primes between consecutive cubes, Rocky
Mountain J. Mathematics, 40(1) 2010, pp. 117153.
14. Y. Cheng, An explicit upper bound for the Riemann zeta-function near
the line = 1, Rocky Mtn. J. Math. 29 1999, pp. 115 140.
15. Y. Cheng, An explicit zero-free region for the Riemann zeta-function,
Rocky Mountain J. Mathematics, 30(1) 2000, pp. 135148.
16. Y. Cheng, B. Weinstock, and C. Wu, Explicit estimates on prime num-
bers, Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, accepted in 1999 and
the revised version resubmitted in 2013.
17. Y. Cheng , Studies on a convexity estimate involving the Riemann zeta
function, initiated, 2013.
18. J. Conrey, More than two fths of the zeros of the Riemann zeta func-
tion are on the critical line, J. reine angew. Math. 399, pp. 126, 1989.
19. R. Crandall and C. Pomerance, Prime Numbers A computational
perspective, Springer, 2001.
20. H. Davenport, Multiplicative Number Theory, 2nd edition, Springer-
Verlag, 1980.
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 33
21. H. M. Edwards, Riemanns zeta function, Academic Press, New York,
London, 1974; Dover Reprint, 1974.
22. W. Ellison and F. Ellison, Prime Numbers, Wiley, 1985.
23. K. Ford, Vinogradovs integral and bounds for the Riemann zeta func-
tion, Proc. London Math. Soc. 85 (2002), pp. 565633.
24. K. Ford, Zero-free regions for the Riemann zeta function, Number The-
ory for the Millennium II, Urbana, IL, pp. 2556, 2002.
25. J. Gram, Note sur les zeros de la fonction de Riemann, Acta Math. 27,
pp. 289304, 1903.
26. X. Gourdon, The 10
13
rst zeros of the Riemann zeta function, and
zeros computation at very large height, http://mathworld.wolfram.
com/RiemannZetaFunctionZeros.html
27. A.J. Hildebrand, Introduction to Analytic Number Theory, 2006,
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/ hildebr/ant/
28. G. H. Hardy, A Mathematicians Apology, Reprint with Foreword by
C. P. Snow, Canto, 1940, pp. 113.
29. G. H. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood, Contributions to the Theory of the
Riemann Zeta-Function and the Theory of the Distribution of Primes,
Acta Mathematica, 41, pp. 119196, 1916.
30. G. H. Hardy, E. M. Wright, and A. Wiles, An Introduction to the
Theory of Numbers, 6th. ed., Oxford University Press, 2008.
31. G. Hoheisel, Primzahlprobleme in der Analysis, Sitz. Preuss. Akad.
Wiss., 33, pp. 580588, 1930.
32. J. Horgan, The Death of Proof, Scientic American 269, pp. 92103,
1993.
33. A. Ivic, The Riemann zeta function Theory and Applications, Dover
Publications, Inc., Mineola, New York, 1985.
34. G. J. O. Jameson, The Prime Number Theorem, LMS, Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2003.
35. E. Klarriech, Prime time, New Scientist, no. 2264, 2000.
36. I. M. Korobov, Exponential sums and their applications, Kluwer, Dor-
drechl, 1992 (transl. of Russian original of 1982).
37. M. K uhleitner and W. Novak, On a question of A. Schinzel: Omega
estimates for a special type of arithmetic functions, Cent. Eur. J. Math.,
11(3), 2013, pp. 477-486.
38. E. Landau, Handbuch der Lehre von der Verteilung der Primzahlen
Teubner, Leipzig 1909 (Reprint by Chelsea, New York, 1953).
39. Chang-Hai Lu, The Riemann hypothesis, http://www.changhai.org /ar-
ticles/science/mathematics/riemann hypothesis/03.php
40. N. Levinson, More than one-third of the zeros of the Riemann zeta-
function are on s =
1
2
, Adv. Math. 13, pp. 383436, 1974.
41. J. Lagarias, An elementary problem equivalent to the Riemann hypoth-
esis, Amer. Math. Monthly, 109, pp. 534543, 2002.
42. S. J. Miller and R. Takloo-Bighash, An invitation to Modern Number
Theory, Princeton Univ. Press, 2006.
43. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 56 (6), pp. 692710.
34 YUANYOU CHENG
44. A. Odlyzko and A. Schonhage, Fast algorithms for multiple evaluations
of the Riemann zeta function, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 309 (2): pp.
797809, 1988.
45. K. Prachar, Primzahlverteilung, Springer, Berlin, 1957.
46. http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ValueOfTheRiemannZetaFunction-
AtS0.html
47. B. Riemann,

Uber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen
Grosse, Monatsber. Akad., Berlin, pp. 671680, 1859.
48. G. Robin, Grandes valeurs de la fonction somme des diviseurs et hy-
poth`ese de Riemann, J. Math. Pures appl., 63, pp. 187213, 1984.
49. J. B. Rosser, Explicit bounds for some functions of prime numbers,
Amer. J. Math., 63 (1941), pp. 211-232.
50. A. Selberg, On the zeros of the zeta-function of Riemann, Der Kong.
Norske Vidensk. Selsk. Forhand. 15 (1942), pp. 5962; also, Collected
Papers, Springer-Verlag, Berlin - Heidelberg - New York, Vol. I, pp.
156159, 1989.
51. L. Schoenfeld, Sharper bounds for the Chebyshev functions (x) and
(x) II, Math. Comp., 30, 1976, pp. 337360. Corrigendum, ibid. 30,
1976, pp. 900.
52. A. M. Turing, A method for the calculation of the zeta-function, Proc.
London Math. Soc. (2) 48, 1943, pp. 180197.
53. E. C. Titchmarsh, The Theory of the Riemann zeta function, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1951; 2nd ed. revised by D. R. Heath-Brown,
1986.
54. P. Tur an, On the remainder term of the prime number theorem II, Acad.
Sci. Hung., 1, 1950, pp. 155-166.
55. P. Tur an, Eine neue Methode in der Analysis and derer Anwendungen,
Ak. Kiad o, Budapest, 1953.
56. I. M. Vinogradov, Selected Works, Springer, Berlin, 1985.
57. I. M. Vinogradov, A new estimate for (1+it), Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR,
22, 1958, pp. 161-164.
58. I. M. Vinogradov, The method of Trigonometric Series in Number The-
ory, 1980.
59. A. Walsz, Weylschen Exponentialsummen in der Neueren Zahlenthe-
orie, VEB, Berlin, 1963.
HOW TO PROVE THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 35
Abstract. The Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to the -form of
the prime number theorem as (x) = O(x
1/2
log
2
x), where (x) =

nx
_
(n) 1
_
with the sum running through the set of all natural
integers. Let Z(s) =

(s)
(s)
(s). We use the classical integral formula
for the Heaviside function in the form of H(x) =
_
m+i
mi
x
s
s
d s where
m > 0, and H(x) is 0 when
1
2
< x < 1,
1
2
when x = 1, and 1 when
x > 1. However, we diverge from the literature by applying Cauchys
residue theorem to the function Z(s)
x
s
s
, rather than

(s)
(s)

x
s
s
, so that
we may utilize the formula for
1
2
< m < 1, under certain conditions.
Starting with the estimate on (x) from the trivial zero-free region
> 1 of Z(s), we use induction to reduce the size of the exponent in
(x) = O(x

log
2
x), while we also use induction on x when is xed.
We prove that the Riemann hypothesis is valid under the assumptions
of the explicit strong density hypothesis and the Lindel of hypothesis
recently proven, via a result of the implication on the zero free regions
from the remainder terms of the prime number theorem by the power
sum method of Turan.
Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Current address: Department of Mathematics, University of Not-disclosed yet,
E-mail address: Yuanyou Furui Cheng <cfy1721@gmail.com>