2.2.1. Determining the Value of “a” in
First, convert equation 9 from cosine to sine, and
then add equation 10 to obtain equation 27.
By expanding equation 27 using the trigonometric
relation, we obtain equation 28.
Divide both sides of equation 28 by
In the second sentence of relation 29, we make a small
change because 1 minus 1 equals 0.
With the use of 31, we will have.
Once we have defined the relationships, we can
revisit the Function, which is similar to relation #15.
If the expression
-
is equal to zero and the expression (
) is equal to one, then Equation 32 becomes similar
to Relation 15.
…+
To obtain a, the manipulation of function clauses
was only done in the second clause, which includes the prefix
. The expression -1+1 is added to it, resulting in
a favorable outcome that confirms the correctness of Riemann's Hypothesis.
However, manipulating the remaining sentences yields new values for a, which
necessitates checking if there is a root on these new lines. We start from
equation 29.
If the expression
equals to zero and the expression
equals to one, then Relation 35 becomes similar to
Relation 15.
#
If the expression
equals to zero and the expression
equals to one, then Relation 37 becomes similar to
Relation 15.
Graphical Proof:
By plotting the function at certain points, it is easy to understand that the Zeta Riemann function has no roots at these points except for the Re(s) =
Figure 1.
Plots of | with
Figure 1.
Plots of | with
Figure 2.
Plots of | with
Figure 2.
Plots of | with
Figure 3.
Plots of | with
Figure 3.
Plots of | with
2.2.2. Determining the Value of “a” in
In the strip 0 < Re(s) < 1 this extension of
the zeta function satisfies the functional equation.
By using the following trigonometric relation and multiplying both equations 37 and 38 by cos (θ) and sin (θ), then add them.
First, convert equation 22 from cosine to sine, and
then add equation 23 to obtain equation 40.
By expanding equation 40 using the trigonometric
relation, we obtain equation 41.
Divide both sides of equation 41 by
In the second sentence of relation 42, we make a
small change because 1 minus 1 equals 0.
With the use of 44, we will have more options.
Once we have defined the relationships, we can
revisit the function, which is similar to relation #39.
If the expression
equals to zero and the expression
equals to one, then Relation 45 becomes similar to
Relation 39.
…+
To obtain a, the manipulation of function clauses
was only done in the second clause, which includes the prefix
. The expression -1+1 is added to it, resulting in
a favorable outcome that confirms the correctness of Riemann's Hypothesis.
However, manipulating the remaining sentences yields new values for a, which
necessitates checking if there is a root on these new lines. We start from
Relation 42.
If the expression equals to zero and the expression equals to one, then Equation 48 becomes similar to
Relation 42.
If =0 , then: = = , a.= . , a= +
#
If the expression equals to zero and the expression equals to one, then Equation 50 becomes similar to
Relation 42.
If
=0 ,
then:
=
,
=
,a.
=
.
Analytical Proof:
According to Table 2, the root of ζ(1-s) lies between 1/2 and 1 if 0 < Re(s) ≤ 1/2, which is not possible. Therefore, values of a ≠ 1/2 cannot be the real part of the root of the zeta function. Thus, the function only has roots on the line Re(s) = 1/2. On the other hand, comparing of Tables 1 and 2, shows that the only common root between ζ(s) and ζ(1-s) is a=1/2.
Table 1.
potential values of the real part “s”, 0 < a ≤ , for
Table 1.
potential values of the real part “s”, 0 < a ≤ , for
| n |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
… |
m |
| a |
|
0.315464 |
|
0.215338 |
0.193426 |
0.178103 |
|
… |
|
Table 2.
potential values of the real part “s”, ≤ a < for
Table 2.
potential values of the real part “s”, ≤ a < for
| n |
2 |
3 |
4 |
… |
8 |
… |
m |
| a |
|
0.684534 |
|
… |
|
… |
 |
2.2.3. The Final Proof of the Riemann Hypothesis
The complex form of equations (5 and 18) for
and
are written.
By comparing both sides of equations 52 and 53, we can determine the value of "a".
Additionally, both the positive and negative values
of b can be used in equations 9 and 10.
Therefore, both and -b are valid for the function. The general
solution to the equation will be.
If we repeat this entire process with relation 1, we will obtain the same result with slight changes in the details (Shown in Appendix A).
2.3.4. Determining the Value of “b”
We start from Equation 2 to prove that the relation between the zeta function and prime numbers (Euler's relation) is true for >0.
. So we will have:
To determine the root of the equation, we set the
value of equal to zero and simplify the equation.
When solving the equation, terms with a factor of
are placed on the left, while the remaining terms with a factor of one are placed on the right. Expressions that involve the multiplication of multiple primes in the denominator of the fraction are ignored with high confidence, compared to expressions that have only one prime in the denominator. The complete proof of the relationship between prime numbers and the generalized zeta function is given in
Appendix B.
Therefore, the final form of the equation will be as follows.