Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

add second link
Source Link
Charles
Charles
  • 9.1k
  • 1
  • 38
  • 76

Suppose a proof came out (and was verified by credible peer review) of the following statement:

There is a $T_0$ such that for all $t>T_0$, all zeros $\zeta(\beta+it)=0$ have $\beta=1/2.$

where $T_0$ is totally ineffective. What interesting consequences would this partial result have?

Of course you could ask this sort of question for all kinds of weakenings/strengthenings/relatives of RH:

  • Zero-density estimates (which already has its own questions its own questionhere hereand here)
  • Density Hypothesis
  • Lindelöf Hypothesis
  • Generalized Riemann hypotheses for various L-functions
  • Grand Lindelöf Hypothesis

But so far all the uses I have seen of $\zeta$ zeros has been in the strip $0<T<T_0$ and I wondered if that was convenience (where we've checked) or more than that.

Suppose a proof came out (and was verified by credible peer review) of the following statement:

There is a $T_0$ such that for all $t>T_0$, all zeros $\zeta(\beta+it)=0$ have $\beta=1/2.$

where $T_0$ is totally ineffective. What interesting consequences would this partial result have?

Of course you could ask this sort of question for all kinds of weakenings/strengthenings/relatives of RH:

  • Zero-density estimates (which already has its own question here)
  • Density Hypothesis
  • Lindelöf Hypothesis
  • Generalized Riemann hypotheses for various L-functions
  • Grand Lindelöf Hypothesis

But so far all the uses I have seen of $\zeta$ zeros has been in the strip $0<T<T_0$ and I wondered if that was convenience (where we've checked) or more than that.

Suppose a proof came out (and was verified by credible peer review) of the following statement:

There is a $T_0$ such that for all $t>T_0$, all zeros $\zeta(\beta+it)=0$ have $\beta=1/2.$

where $T_0$ is totally ineffective. What interesting consequences would this partial result have?

Of course you could ask this sort of question for all kinds of weakenings/strengthenings/relatives of RH:

  • Zero-density estimates (which already has its own questions here and here)
  • Density Hypothesis
  • Lindelöf Hypothesis
  • Generalized Riemann hypotheses for various L-functions
  • Grand Lindelöf Hypothesis

But so far all the uses I have seen of $\zeta$ zeros has been in the strip $0<T<T_0$ and I wondered if that was convenience (where we've checked) or more than that.

Became Hot Network Question
Source Link
Charles
Charles
  • 9.1k
  • 1
  • 38
  • 76

What are the consequences of an ineffective proof of the Riemann Hypothesis?

Suppose a proof came out (and was verified by credible peer review) of the following statement:

There is a $T_0$ such that for all $t>T_0$, all zeros $\zeta(\beta+it)=0$ have $\beta=1/2.$

where $T_0$ is totally ineffective. What interesting consequences would this partial result have?

Of course you could ask this sort of question for all kinds of weakenings/strengthenings/relatives of RH:

  • Zero-density estimates (which already has its own question here)
  • Density Hypothesis
  • Lindelöf Hypothesis
  • Generalized Riemann hypotheses for various L-functions
  • Grand Lindelöf Hypothesis

But so far all the uses I have seen of $\zeta$ zeros has been in the strip $0<T<T_0$ and I wondered if that was convenience (where we've checked) or more than that.