1
$\begingroup$

This question is migrated from this one on MSE and rephrased more simply.

In this question the following closed form was derived, with $0 < \sigma<1$ and $\sigma,x \in \mathbb{R}$:

$$ \frac{1}{\pi\,\Gamma(2\,\sigma)}\int_{0}^{\infty} \zeta(\sigma + x \, i)\,\zeta(\sigma - x \, i)\,\Gamma(\sigma + x \, i)\,\Gamma(\sigma - x \, i)\,dx =\frac{(2\,\sigma-3)}{(2\,\sigma-1)}\,\zeta(2\,\sigma-1)-\zeta(2\,\sigma)\qquad{(1)}$$

Numerical evidence strongly suggests that (1) continues to hold for $\sigma=\beta\pm t\,i, |t|>0, \,\,\beta,t \in \mathbb{R}$. If true, this implies that either of the two $\zeta$s on the RHS could be made $0$ at a non-trivial zero $\rho$.

We could make $\zeta(2\,\sigma-1)=0$ at e.g $\sigma = \frac34 + \frac{14.134725..i}{2}$, or more generally: for each $\sigma$ where:

$$\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi\,\Gamma(2\,\sigma)}\int_{0}^{\infty} \zeta(\beta +t\,i+x\,i)\,\zeta(\beta +t\,i-x\,i)\,\Gamma(\beta +t\,i+x\,i)\,\Gamma(\beta +t\,i-x\,i)\,dx +\zeta(2\,\sigma)=0 \qquad{(2)}$$

we will always induce a $\rho$.

To illustrate that it works, here is a graph of the LHS of (2), for $\sigma=\frac34 + \frac{t}{2}\,i$. Integral from $0...48$: Graph non-trivial zeros

So assuming RH, this would imply that by running the integral through $\sigma = \frac34+\frac{t}{2}\,i$ and adding $\zeta(1.5+t\,i$) (that now can be written as $\displaystyle\prod_{p \in \mathbb{P}} \frac{p^{1.5+t\,i}}{p^{1.5+t\,i}-1}$ or $\displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{1.5+t\,i}}$), we would find all $\rho$s.

Tested it numerically at high accuracy and pretty convinced the results are correct. The integral is quite tough to evaluate though and could become unstable at higher $t$. However, I did get very firm results from using the Adaptive Gaussian Quadrature method for numerical integration.

Note that it is tempting to rewrite the integral into $\displaystyle \int_0^\infty |\zeta(\sigma+x\,i)\,\Gamma(\sigma+x\,i)|^2 dx$. This is fine when $\sigma\in \mathbb{R}$, however when $\sigma = \beta \pm t\,i, |t| >0$, the symmetry of the integrand breaks down -see eq.(2)- and seems to block easy access to integral transforms or other tools from complex analysis.

Question:

Is there a way to proof that equation (1) remains valid for $\sigma=\beta \pm t\,i,|t| >0$ (from which the rest of my question would follow)?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ and you won't get anything on the RH from those, since it works exactly the same when replacing $\zeta(s)$ by $\zeta(s,a)$ the Hurwitz zeta, having a functional equation, no Euler product and many zeros off the critical line $\endgroup$ – reuns Oct 13 '16 at 1:30
  • $\begingroup$ Got it, user1952009. Thanks again for all your great help on this. $\endgroup$ – Agno Oct 13 '16 at 8:45
4
$\begingroup$

Well, both sides of (1) are holomorphic as functions of $\sigma$ in the strip $0<\Re(\sigma)<1$, because the integrand is holomorphic and rapidly decaying as $x\to\infty$ and the right hand side is holomorphic even at $\sigma=1/2$. So, yes: if (1) holds for $0<\sigma<1$ then it holds for $0<\Re(\sigma)<1$ in general, by the unicity theorem.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ of course, I don't see how I missed that $\endgroup$ – reuns Oct 13 '16 at 1:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.