A new proof for Riemann hypothesis and a

new statement to get the convergence of zeta

function
submitted to springer :20/05/2014 and Revised 20/06/2014
email:zeraoulirak@yahoo.fr
University of batna. Algeria
zeraoulia rak
Abstract : in this paper, I would be interest to present a new proof for
Riemann hypothesis and I tried to obtain a new statement
which help us to get the convergence of Riemann zeta function in one half
plane complex. may help us to show that all non trivial zeros
of Riemann zeta function have a real part equals one half.
springer : zeraoulia rak , china , mathematics,
key :Riemann hypothesis by zeraoulia rak 2014
1
2 Preliminaries
Denition 2.1. ((1.1) of [3]) The Riemann zeta-function (s) is dened as
(s) =

n=1
1
n
s
(Re(s) > 1),
and the series converges absolutely and uniformly in the region.
Theorem 2.2. (Theorem 1.2 of [3]) The function (s), dened in Denition 2.1
for Re(s) > 1, admits of analytic continuation over the open right half complex plane
except s = 1 and has the form
(s) = (1 2
1s
)
1

n=1
(1)
n+1
n
s
(Re(s) > 0).
Theorem 2.3. (Theorem 1.6 of [3]) For all complex s
(s) = 2
s

s1
sin(
s
2
)(1 s)(1 s).
Theorem 2.4. Re(s) 1 is the regions in the complex plane where (s) = 0.
Proof. Proof is clear by the quote This shows that (s) = 0 for Re(s) > 1 [3], and
the Theorem 1.5 of [3].
Theorem 2.5. The Riemann zeta-function (s), has no non-trivial zeros in the re-
gions Re(s) 0, where trivial zeros mean negative even numbers.
Proof. According to Theorem 2.3 and Theorem 2.4, the Riemann zeta-function be-
comes zero in the region Re(s) 0 only when sin(
s
2
) is zero, because (1 s) and
(1 s) has no zero when Re(1 s) 1.
2
3 Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis
Denition 3.1.The function (n) represents the total number of prime factors of n.
Denition 3.2. We dene a function (n) of natural number n as
(n) =

m|n
(1)
n
m
+1
(1)
(m)
.
Theorem 3.3. The function (n) dened in Denition 3.2 has the following values
(n) =

1 if n = m
2
, where m N,
2 if n = 2m
2
, where m N,
0 otherwise.
Proof. By the Denition 3.2 with an odd prime number p and a number n
(p
n
) =

1 if n is an even number,
0 otherwise.
Moreover for an odd prime number p and an odd number m satisfying p m with
an arbitrary natural number a, the beta function satises
(p
a
m) =

t|p
a
m
(1)
p
a
m
t
+1
(1)
(t)
=
a

i=0

t|m
(1)
p
a
m
p
i
t
+1
(1)
(p
i
t)
=
a

i=0

t|m
(1)
p
ai m
t
+1
(1)
(p
i
)
(1)
(t)
=
a

i=0
(1)
i

t|m
(1)
p
ai m
t
+1
(1)
(t)
=
a

i=0
(1)
i

t|m
(1)
m
t
+1
(1)
(t)
=
a

i=0
(1)
i
(m) = (m)
a

i=0
(1)
i
= (m)
a

i=0
(1)
p
a
p
i
+1
(1)
i
= (m)(p
a
).
3
Using the proven knowledge, (n) = 1 for odd square number n, and (n) = 0
for odd non-square number n. Since even numbers can be decomposed to 2
a
m with
an odd number m, we have the following equation.
(2
a
m) =

t|2
a
m
(1)
2
a
m
t
+1
(1)
(t)
=
a

i=0

t|m
(1)
2
a
m
2
i
t
+1
(1)
(2
i
t)
=
a

i=0

t|m
(1)
2
ai m
t
+1
(1)
(2
i
)
(1)
(t)
=
a

i=0
(1)
i

t|m
(1)
2
ai m
t
+1
(1)
(t)
=
a1

i=0
(1)
i

t|m
(1)
m
t
+1
(1)
(t)
+ (1)
a

t|m
(1)
m
t
+1
(1)
(t)
=
a1

i=0
(1)
i
(m) + (m)(1)
a
.
If m is not a square number, then (2
a
m) = 0 by using the fact derived above. If
m is a square number, the following result holds and thus the theorem is proved.
(2
a
m) =

1 if a is even,
2 if a is odd.
Denition 3.4. We dene a double sequence a
ij
for all i, j N as
a
ij
=

(1)
j
i
+1
j
s
(1)
(i)
if i | j,
0 otherwise,
where s C satises

n=1
(1)
n+1
n
s
= 0 and
1
2
< Re(s) < 1.
Lemma 3.5. The double sequence dened in Denition 3.4 satisfy

i=1

j=1
a
ij
=

j=1

i=1
a
ij
.
4
Proof. By Theorem 2.15 and Theorem 2.13 of [4] it is sucient to prove 1)

j=1
a
ij
converges uniformly on i, 2)

i=1

j=1
a
ij
= 0, and 3)

i=1
a
ij
converges for all j,
where 2) and 3) is eaily proved by using Denition 3.4 and the fact that

j=1
a
ij
=

l=1
a
i(il)
for all i.

i=1

j=1
a
ij
=

i=1

l=1
a
i(il)
=

i=1
(1)
(i)
i
s
(

l=1
(1)
l+1
l
s
) = 0,

i=1
a
ij
=

i|j
(1)
j
i
+1
(1)
(i)
j
s
=
(j)
j
s
, j.
For 1), since s satisfy

l=1
(1)
l+1
l
s
= 0, there exists a M s.t. for all 0 n it
satises |

l=n+1
(1)
l+1
l
s
| = |

n
l=1
(1)
l+1
l
s
| < M. Moreover, 0 < , 2 N
1
() s.t.
N
1
() n satises |

l=n
(1)
l+1
l
s
| = |

n1
l=1
(1)
l+1
l
s
| < . Since, M dened eariler is
a constant, for all 0 < there exists N
2
() s.t. for all N
2
() m we have |
M
m
s
| < .
Finally, for all 0 < if we let N() = N
1
() N
2
(), then for all N() < n
1
it
satises |

n
1
1
n=1
a
mn
| = |

n=n
1
a
mn
| < for all m. This is true since, if N
2
() m
|

n=n
1
a
mn
| = |
(1)
(m)
m
s

l=[
n
1
m
]+1
(1)
l+1
l
s
| |
1
m
s
||

l=[
n
1
m
]+1
(1)
l+1
l
s
| <
M
|m
s
|
< .
If 1 m < N
2
(), then N
1
() [
n
1
m
] + 1 holds and
|

n=n
1
a
mn
| = |
(1)
(m)
m
s

l=[
n
1
m
]+1
(1)
l+1
l
s
| |
1
m
s
||

l=[
n
1
m
]+1
(1)
l+1
l
s
| <

|m
s
|
.
Which proves the uniform convergence of

j=1
a
ij
to 0 and proves the result.
Theorem 3.6. The Riemann zeta-function only has zeros with real value 1/2 in the
regions 0 < Re(s) < 1.
Proof. WLOG we can nd s C s.t.
1
2
< Re(s) < 1 and (s) = 0 by the func-
tional equation proved in Theorem 2.3, i.e., (s) = (1 2
1s
)
1

n=1
(1)
n+1
n
s
= 0,
which concludes

n=1
(1)
n+1
n
s
= 0, because (1 2
1s
)
1
= 0. Thereby multiplying
(1)
(m)
m
s
to the equation,

n=1
(1)
n+1
(1)
(m)
(mn)
s
= 0 for all m. Adding it from 1 to
5
,

m=1

n=1
(1)
n+1
(1)
(m)
(mn)
s
= 0 is true, which results into 0 =

i=1

j=1
a
ij
=

j=1

i=1
a
ij
=

j=1
(j)
j
s
by Lemma 3.5.
Since,
1
2
< Re(s) the value of

n=1
1
n
2s
is dened and equals to (2s). Therefore,
if we dene a sequence {b
n
} and {c
n
} as
b
n
=

1
n
s
if n = m
2
, where m N,
0 otherwise,
c
n
=

2
n
s
if n = 2m
2
, where m N,
0 otherwise.
Each series

n=1
b
n
and

n=1
c
n
converges to (2s) and 2
1s
(2s) respectively.
By Lemma 3.3,

j=1
(j)
j
s
=

j=1
b
j
+

j=1
c
j
and thus 0 =

j=1
(j)
j
s
= (1
2
1s
)(2s), which concludes (2s) = 0.
Above statement proves that 2s is also a zero of the Riemann zeta-function. How-
ever, we already know by Theorem 2.4 that there is no zero for the region Re(s) 1.
Thus we have a contradiction and the theorem is proved.
4 Conclusion
For an unproved Millennium problem, Riemann Hypothesis, we give a possible proof
and therefore, the use of the Riemann Hypothesis will be furtilized.
References
[1] E. Landau, Primzahlen, Zwei Bd., IInd ed., with an Appendix by Dr. Paul T.
Bateman, Chelsea, New York 1953.
[2] H.M. Edwards, Riemanns Zeta Function, Academic Press, New York - London
1974.
[3] A. Ivic, The Riemann Zeta-Function: Theory and Applications, Courier Dover
Publication, 2003.
[4] Habil, Eissa D. Double sequences and double series, The Islamic University Jour-
nal, Series of Natural Studies and Engineering 14, 2006.
6