Preprint Article Version 2 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis

Version 1 : Received: 27 September 2021 / Approved: 29 September 2021 / Online: 29 September 2021 (08:30:39 CEST)
Version 2 : Received: 11 October 2021 / Approved: 11 October 2021 / Online: 11 October 2021 (15:38:28 CEST)
Version 3 : Received: 12 October 2021 / Approved: 12 October 2021 / Online: 12 October 2021 (14:31:46 CEST)
Version 4 : Received: 14 October 2021 / Approved: 15 October 2021 / Online: 15 October 2021 (11:14:58 CEST)

How to cite: Vega, F. Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis. Preprints 2021, 2021090480. Vega, F. Disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis. Preprints 2021, 2021090480.


We define the function $\upsilon(x) = \frac{3 \times \log x + 5}{8 \times \pi \times \sqrt{x} + 1.2 \times \log x + 2} + \frac{\log x}{\log (x + C \times \sqrt{x} \times \log \log \log x)} - 1$ for some positive constant $C$ independent of $x$. We prove that the Riemann hypothesis is false when there exists some number $y \geq 13.1$ such that for all $x \geq y$ the inequality $\upsilon(x) \leq 0$ is always satisfied. We know that the function $\upsilon(x)$ is monotonically decreasing for all sufficiently large numbers $x \geq 13.1$. Hence, it is enough to find a value of $y \geq 13.1$ such that $\upsilon(y) \leq 0$ since for all $x \geq y$ we would have that $\upsilon(x) \leq \upsilon(y) \leq 0$. Using the tool $\textit{gp}$ from the project PARI/GP, we note that $\upsilon(100!) \approx \textit{-2.938735877055718770 E-39} < 0$ for all $C \geq \frac{1}{1000000!}$. In this way, we claim that the Riemann hypothesis could be false.


Riemann hypothesis; Robin inequality; sum-of-divisors function; prime numbers


Computer Science and Mathematics, Algebra and Number Theory

Comments (1)

Comment 1
Received: 11 October 2021
Commenter: Frank Vega
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Author
Comment: We introduced a major improvement on this new manuscript: I added a new result and thus, I changed the title, abstract and the content.  This version is more accurated since this was checked by numerical computation.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0

Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.