When a man presents the Riemann Hypothesis problem he presents it like this: "Are all the non-trivial zeroes of the Riemann Zeta function confined to the 1/2 line?" But this is a weird way to present the problem. Firstly, why did you need to invent a whole term just for "non-trivial zeroes" when saying "non-negative even integer zeroes" is barely much longer a phrase at all?Secondly, why do you say "the zeroes of the Riemann Zeta function" when the negative even integers are NOT zeroes if the Zeta function by any means, they are actually the zeroes of a modified version of the zeta function that extends the domain of the function to converge on negative integers though it normally diverges there. Why not just say this when you present the problem to someone who has never heard of it before? I am no genius but even I can see that is a retarded way of explaining the problem to someone, it is much more accessible to someone who has never heard of the problem if you just say the problem is to prove whether all zeroes to an extended domain zeta functuon that are not negative even integers have a real part 1/2 or not, lol.
>>16976180Nobody would ever actually understand the problem unless they were already extremely learned in higher math, in which case they don't need an overly detailed description, OR they have no idea what any of that means, in which case you'll have to spend like an hour+ just to explain what the fuck you're talking about. I really don't think there exists a human being on the planet earth that would find more utility in a very slightly more clear single sentence definition of the problem.
>>16976239Re stating the question could provide novel clarity to experts and opens the floor for some random savant to see the question and solve the problem
>>16976239Well basically, I'm just saying like... "Non-Trivial Zero of the Zeta Function" seems kind of like a stretch. They made up the word non-trivial zero, and it's not even really the zeta function technically. The zeta function is invalid for negative inputs. They use a function that is like the zeta function but it's valid for negative inputs, and the negative even integers like -2, -4, -6, -8 always have 0 as their output, because if you look at the modified zeta function they are using, it is very obvious why those numbers have zero as the output, so they decided to call them the trivial zeroes, but that name is unnecessary you could just say the negative even integers.>>16976243So true haha lol.
>>16976180>they are actually the zeroes of a modified version of the zeta function that extends the domain of the function to converge on negative integers though it normally diverges there.That is the zeta function. it's literally defined as that analytic continuation.
>>16976268Then what do you call this?Whatever you decide to call this one, it diverges for the negatives.This is the Riemann Zeta Function, they use a different function that they consider to be an "analytic continuation" because it's otherwise equivalent except it doesn't diverge for negative integers.Lol.
>>16976273An infinite sum equal to the zeta function for Re(s)>1, useful for introducing the zeta function in a way that's not schizophrenic but not the zeta function itself.What, do you bitch about people talking about the gamma function as anything other than a translation of the factorial, too?
>>16976276Well you are just proving my point though because that is how most people present the Zeta function, as Re(s)>1, which is confusing and makes no sense in the context of the problem, lol.
>>16976277just like how defining the factorial of anything but nonnegative integers makes no sense but that's still the jumping-off point for the gamma function. It turns out it's usually less confusing to introduce it through familiar terms and then generalise than it is to immediately beat someone over the head with the most autistic integral imaginable and to expect them to make sense of it.
>>16976180None of what you're complaining about is important. It's all perfectly clear to anyone with an undergraduate-level understanding of complex analysis. Anything that's unclear is easily looked up. You are being a pedant and wasting your time and energy.
>>16976252idk, asking someone to find a bunch of neeigers sounds like it might end badly
