What is the Riemann Hypothesis REALLY about?

how Riemann prime or twin prime count very near with natural balance point's twin prime posibility?
Rieman prime count give to us: twin prime posibilities "image value", how?

our lastest big number test (please test yourself, and easy see)
for example : r=69

range:

windows 7 calculator: up to 32 decimal digit

[exp(69)-69^5]=925378172558778760022675760319

[exp(69)+69^5]=925378172558778760025803823017


cmd console:

primecount --Ri 925378172558778760022675760319 --time

13611538292912246113710533385

Seconds: 0.012

time is only mili seconds!

primecount --Ri 925378172558778760025803823017

13611538292912246113755867627

Range Riemann prime count = -13611538292912246113710533385 +13611538292912246113755867627

=45334242

in the range Riemann twin prime calcula formula:

45334242 x 1,32032363169373914785562422/69=

867476,39184815710744580651377596

in the range elemantaray posible twin calcula formula:

2 x 1,32032363169373914785562422 x 69^3=

867476,39184815710744580651377596

not only integer value, many digit same, how?

of course twin count only integer value: 867476

please test yourself in the big numbers' range and calculate range real twin count, abs(deviation) ?< %1

important note: this test results are only spor and hoby, this tests are not elemantary math proof value!
but if you are an engineer then may be usefull, because twin prime's real counts and formula results deviation < %1
and every step's twin counts bigger then previous steps, so twin primes more more big if to infinity steps!

if we think, and we ask how, may be more expand ideas will easy appear.
please think how?
at least wonder: how

if we lost how question then math goes a memorise taboo

Prime numbers don’t MEAN ANYTHING

A quantum computing can solve Riemann hypothesis....

Primes are predictable as they will always be a subset of the repeating (periodic) pattern of the co-primes of a set of initial primes (2..p). This pattern has period (2*3*..*p).

If there would be a zero at a point with real part 1/2 + x, there must also be one at the same point with real part 1/2 - x, but apart from the trivial zeros, there cannot be two zeroes with the same imaginary part.

I wonder if you'd get the million bucks if you proved that the hypothesis is unprovable.

They couldn't think of another symbol besides π? Seems odd.

Why was Riemann interested in this function and how did he make the link to primes???????

Very good job. You had to talk fast, but you got a great deal of information out pretty clearly. The graphics were necessary and first rate. Never boring and you held your direction well by not running down every complication, but not ignoring them either.

Can you make a series on measure theory? How about Functional analysis?

imagine knowing the number of primes being this important... while this video is very nice and interesting, high-end math really is cringe

Very well explained and thrill conveyed :)

What are these "Riemann harmonics" of s?
Had trouble finding them in a google search

We hope that you done the video you promise about imaginary numbers and matrices.

Half the prize goes to taxes

Always thought primes were some kind of building blocks of the Universe.

what an ambitious video, very well executed. 80% of this goes above my head but I understand the main idea. a question I have is this: can someone possessing the proof but keeping it hidden profit from this more than the million dollar prize? Like if someone had a constructive proof for P=NP and a practical method to reduce NP problems, they could "profit" from it be it through stealing stuff or just keeping it secret and having an unbreakable competitive edge for solving some problems faster than anyone. Does riemann hypothesis lead to something like that?

I'm wondering whether mathematicians will eventually stop repurposing Greek letters and start using more Hebrew, Cyrillic, Hiragana, etc

Another thought: if the awards committee invested $1M back in 2003 into S&P 500 (9.8% annual return), it would be worth $6.5M by now. The Zeta problem is so important that it would be fair for the solving mathematician to get $6.5M, not just $1M !! Alas, we are stuck with $1M. Actually, the $1M award was presumably put into a bank, and at that bank, believe me, someone DID invest the $1M. And so now, some non-math finance guy has $5.5M, and the mathematicians still have just $1M. For any future scientific awards committee out there: please, index the award with inflation and/or invest it, or else non-scientists will just leech on the money!

Very nice video, I enjoyed it. You enthusiastically mention the $1M prize several times. This prize has been around for over 20 years, and the inflation has definitely eaten into its value. At 2% inflation, in 20 years, the purchasing power of the $1M prize is now only $0.66M, relative to 2003. Too bad that whoever set up these awards, didn't defend the prize against this problem, and instead the prize money just "rots", undefended against inflation. It definitely reduces the financial excitement. Of course, math is not done for money. But since the $1M is advertised so much, I thought I'd mention this.

Might the Riemann hypothesis be UNDECIDABLE?

And laddies and gentlemen, this is how I know how stupid I am. Have a nice day.

i got lost somewhere in the video

This is the best video on Riemann hypothesis I've seen on YT. Congratulations on explaining it in-depth yet in simple terms.

The longer this goes unsolved the higher the reward should be for solving it. I mean the prize should be an inflation-adjusted. No?

So, one can divide the humanities of the Universe into two types: those that demonstrated the Riemann hypothesis and those that did not.

Using analytic continuation gives us some non intuitive and surprising results. Esp when ζ is -1

Vavyvslny.e

"Yes, this expression looks intimidating as heck, so let's procrastinate..."

I totally agree with this snippet of transcript

u are just jumping arround

The reason why Riemonn Hypothesis is true is because the length of one changes. Every time a number added a new fraction is made. Everyone needs to understand that. Let me explain 2 is a prime because 1/2+1/2 =1 or the Distance was 1 but now its a fraction. ..... The length of the #1 keeps needed to be adjusted, that adjustment is the prime #.

i've watched prolly 10 videos explaining the Riemann Hypothesis and this is my favorite one. Very well done!!!

looks easy, could probably do in few hour ngl

Pi is a constant, not a variable... Treating pi as any value other than its intended value is just retarded.

Thanks for the video. It is both accessible and in-depth.

hold my beer, how hard can it be, eh?

After you said "Bernhard Riemann" I knew you were German-speaking :) Greetings from Poland.

Are you Slovakian?

You deserve millions of views!!❤

as a non-mathematician, I find it quite interesting and even mind-blowing. Thank you for your effort to present the material in an entertaining way.

im no mathematician but this seems like inherrent logic to me.
1) Primes "encode" how numbers work. there have to be fiewer as you move on because there are more divisors. the exact rules give us the prime distribution. it literally cant be diffrent or the rules must be diffrent.
2) so this means the form and rythem (amplitude and frequency) are directly dependent on the literal rules of mathematics and cant change.
because if the primes where any diffrent they would be divisible by 2 (for example) - so slope and freq will never change.

thats like literally a prove that the function cant be different from that 0,5 line at pricise steps.
be left or right of the line or not in Sync with the "up steps" (i direction) would mean that the function look diffrent and mathematics of primes would be screwed.

What if the line of "0.5" is correlated with the "percolation value", which is 0.5?


Let's imagine an encoding from logical propositions of a formal language (first or higher order of logic) into integer numbers; which might be the Gödel numbering. Actually, a set of encodings, where the "building blocks", i.e. the basic components of that language like the axioms and numbers like zero, can be encoded in either prime or non-prime numbers. Let's also imagine that "proving backward" a statement is the operation of finding which numbers, and therefore sub-statements or axioms, are used to "compose" the number associated with that statement.
In this scenario, every true statement could either be or not be traced back to a set of axioms and logical operators used to compose such statement: which encoding would yield a unique and deterministic list of axioms, operators, and "ordering of application" ( "a & (b | c)" is not the same as "(a & b) | c" or the equivalent "a&b|c", since the parenthesis are different and the operators have different precedence)? My wild guess is the prime factorization since each integer has a unique and distinct prime factorization.
Lastly, another wild hypotesis: any true statement can be verified if it requires an amount of non-contradictorily axioms/steps that is countable (even infinite ones, they just need to be countable) and a "good" encoder can actually classify verifiable statements from non-verifiable ones (since they should be encoded in a number).
A "golden encoding" should be able to precisely identify the "triplet" formed by the set of axioms, the set of operators, and the sequence of operators' applications in order to describe any true and provable statement.

Then, here comes my hypothesis: the Zeta function can be viewed as a "descriptor of encoders of a formal language (math)", expressing the "confusion" of those encoders in encoding formal languages, a confusion based and those econders' properties like "what is the value, in the real dimension of the phase transition" and "which set of numbers is part of the axioms of that encoders, after a specific encoding [leading to the imaginary part of each zero of the Zeta funciton]".
Here, the Zeta function goes to zero, which means "perfect clarity", with the percolation value set at 1/2 and with a "decomposition function" in the "golden encoding" defined as the factorization of prime numbers; therefore the prime numbers are mandatorily used in defining the axioms.
If so, all non-trivial zeros of the Zeta functions MUST be all the prime numbers otherwise there would be no bijection from the set of verifiable true statements and the set of "triplets".

I hope this help

Another nice connection between Riemann zeta-function and prime numbers is how the infinite sum of 1/n^s can be represented as an infinite product of 1/(1-1/p^s), where p goes over all prime numbers. Products of such kind are also known as Euler products.