1. Introduction
Riemann zeta-function
is originally defined as
and it also can be expressed as the product form
This formula is called Euler’s product formula, which indicates the relation between
and prime numbers. About
there is a well-known Riemann hypothesis, states that all the non-trivial zeros of
are on the critical line
. The researches on the conjecture are no doubt a most time-consuming one in mathematics, refer to see the survey paper [3].
The so-called trivial zeros of are , and nontrivial zeros of are known all in the critical strip .
Denote by
the number of zeros of
in the region
,
, and by
the number of zeros on the critical line
,
. Riemann hypothesis is that
For
, it is known that
And for
, Hardy firstly shown that there are infinity many zeros on the critical line, and then he and Littlewood [5] and Selberg [8] proved that
Levinson [6] proved
and then this result has been improved successively. Conrey [2], Feng [4] proved respectively
In this paper, we will prove that
Theorem 1.1.
where .
The main arguments in this paper are based the papers [6],[7] and [1], but instead of using Riemann-Siegel formula, it will be applied an auxiliary function defined in Lemma 2.1, which will play a role of mollifier and ferry, it firstly used in [7] but here with a small modification.
In the prior version, possibly there was a issue that in Lemma 2.2 the integrant should be rewritten as when the integral path is moved from to , which has been revised in this version.
3. The Proof of Theorem 1.1
Proof. Let
, then the functional equation of
can be written as
□
By Stirling’s formula, it has
Let
, then
and for larger
t
Taking logarithm of equation (3.1), and then derivative, it follows
We note that the right side of (3.5) is a sum of two conjugative complex numbers as
, so the zeros of the right side of (3.5) occur if and only if
On the left side of (3.5), clearly,
is never zero, and by (3.4), so these zeros are just the zeros of
.
Moreover, let
, then
, and
By (3.6), the zeros of
are the ones
on
, equivalently,
on
. Write
, and denote by
The investigation above means
By(3.2), it can be known that
So, the main task to determine
is to calculate
. Let
,
, and let
D be the rectangle with the vertices
,
,
,
,
. First of all, we might as well assume there are no zeros of
on the boundary of
D, then by the principle of argument, the change of
around
D is equal to
times
, the number of zeros of
in
D.
On the right side of
D
so,
change less than
. On the lower side and the upper side of
D, by a known result [9,
], a extension of Jessen’s theorem, taking account on the order of
, we can know that
as
, and
as
, hence, for any
, it has
So,
Now the work is turned into to evaluate
.
Let
, and
be the rectangle with vertices
,
,
,
. Taking the integral
, by the Littlewood’s Lemma [9,
], it has
where
is the sum of the distances of the zeros of
from the left.
By (3.9), it is easy to know
and it is familiar that
So
With (3.12), the rest is to calculate the first integral of (3.14).
By the concavity of logarithm, it has
At first, we simplify
as
Then
And
By Cauchy’s inequality
The third integral in the right side of (3.16) is much smaller than the first one, which will be actually calculated later, hence
Let
From Lemma 2.1, it is known that
is the domination of
, and which is a positive real number apart from a small error term.
Moreover, let
Then it has
And
Moreover, by Lemma 2.1, there is
(3.19) and (3.20) indicate that function
may be used as a mollifier.
Let
In the following we will replace
by
, and let
Then,
where
By the mean-value theorems (cf. [9, Ch.7]), it has
similarly,
Then, by Lemma 2.2, it has
Moreover, by the functional equation of
, it has
and
and it is easy to know
Hence,
where
Expanding
and
as Dirichlet’s series, and by the Lemma 2.1, it has
where
, and
is same as in Lemma 2.3.
Dividing
and
into three parts respectively,
Then by Lemmas 1,2,3,
1
and
Let
It is easy to follow that
Let
, then
Take
,
, then it has
and
Let
, by (3.15), it follows
With (3.12), (3.14), (3.19),(3.20) and (3.23), and recall that
, it follows
i.e.
and
Then let
T be
, and summing. This proves Theorem 1.1 in the case that there are no zeros of
on the boundary of
D.
For the rest case, let
and
be the numbers of zeros of
on the left side of
D,
, and in
D with
, respectively. Indent the left side of
D with small semicircles with centers at the zeros and lying in
. Let
be the number of distinct zeros in the
zeros. Let
be the variation in
in the
jth interval between the successive semicircles. Then by the principle of argument, it has
Let
be the variation of argument of
in the
jth interval, where
is taken for increasing
t, while
is taken for decreasing
t. With (3.2) and (3.24), it has
By (3.8), in the
jth open interval, the number of zeros of
is at least
and in all the open intervals, the number of zeros is at least
Moreover, by (3.7), we can know that on the side
, a zero of
is also a zero of
, and so a zero of
, with multiplicity one greater, so there are
such zeros of
, adding to (3.26), in total, it has
By (3.11), we can know
i.e.
Besides, we know that on the critical line a zero of
is also a zero of
, and so a zero of
, with multiplicity one greater. Hence
where sum is over the distinct zeros of
on the left side of
D,
m is the multiplicity of a zero.
And so,
This means that the non-trivial zeros of
are all on the critical line, and all are simple, with at most
ones excepted.