Mathematics > General Mathematics
[Submitted on 21 Feb 2018 (v1), revised 3 Dec 2018 (this version, v6), latest version 23 Jul 2019 (v7)]
Title:In Half-Plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, Riemann's $ζ(s)$ is Convergent and the Dirichlet Series of $ζ(s)$ is Divergent, Violating the Law of Non-Contradiction
View PDFAbstract:Propositional logics and Three-Valued Logics (3VL) are useful tools for analyzing the Riemann Hypothesis (RH). Riemann's "expression" of $\zeta(s)$ claims to be convergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$ (except at $s=1$). Given that the Dirichlet series "expression" of $\zeta(s)$ is proven to be divergent there, the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) holds that $\zeta(s)$ cannot also be convergent there. So $\zeta(s)$ is exclusively divergent throughout half-plane $\text{Re}(s)\le1$, and has no zeros. So $\zeta(1)\ne0$, resolving the BSD conjecture in favor of finiteness, and 2D Yang-Mills theory is invalid, due to assuming that Riemann's $\zeta(s)$ is true.
Also, the derivation of Riemann's $\zeta(s)$ is invalid, due to Riemann's improper use of Cauchy's integral theorem to equate the branch cut of $f(x)=\log(-x)$ to a Hankel contour. The branch cut is non-holomorphic, and the Hankel contour is open (or closed at infinity, thereby encircling non-holomorphic points). Both the branch cut and Hankel contour contradict prerequisites of Cauchy's integral theorem.
In set theory, $\zeta(s)$'s zeros form an empty set, so RH ("all zeros are on the critical line") and $\overline{RH}$ ("not all zeros are on the critical line") are both "vacuously true". In classical logic, $\zeta(s)$ has no zeros, so material implication holds that RH and $\overline{RH}$ are both true, and conjunction holds that both are false. So RH is a paradox that violates LNC and LEM, and causes ECQ.
In contrast, Frege's, Łukasiewicz's, and Kleene's 3VLs reject LEM, and hold RH to be neither true nor false. Priest's 3VL further rejects LNC and ECQ, and holds RH to be both true and false. In Frege's logic, truth-value gaps imply gluts, and vice versa. In Kleene's and Priest's 3VLs, the proposition "if RH, then $X$" is true, if $X$ is true (in Łukasiewicz's, also if $X$ is both), and does not cause ECQ.
Submission history
From: Ayal Sharon [view email][v1] Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:40:13 UTC (38 KB)
[v2] Wed, 28 Feb 2018 13:53:01 UTC (1 KB) (withdrawn)
[v3] Wed, 7 Mar 2018 05:34:05 UTC (43 KB)
[v4] Wed, 13 Jun 2018 04:43:37 UTC (43 KB)
[v5] Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:48:49 UTC (14 KB)
[v6] Mon, 3 Dec 2018 05:54:29 UTC (57 KB)
[v7] Tue, 23 Jul 2019 06:12:14 UTC (249 KB)
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.