3
$\begingroup$

Riemann Zeta as Euler Product

As you likely know, the Riemann Zeta function, commonly expressed as a sum:

$$\zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^s}$$

can be written as an Euler product formula:

$$\zeta(s) = \prod_{p\ prime} \frac{1}{1-p^{-s}}$$

Zeros

For the Riemann Zeta function to be zero, this means at least one of those product factors must be zero:

$$\frac{1}{1-p^{-s}} = 0$$

Flaw?

Why is the above logic considered incorrect? Where is the flaw?

If it is indeed correct, then why don't mathematicians talk about proving the Riemann Hypothesis that non-trivial zeros lie on the $Re(s) = \frac{1}{2}$ line, by focussing on these factors, one of which must be zero?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The Euler product for the $\zeta$ function and the series $\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{n^s}$ are converging only in the region $\text{Re}(s)>1$. When we talk about the zeroes of the $\zeta$ function, we mean the zeroes of the analytic continuation of such series. $\endgroup$ – Jack D'Aurizio Apr 21 '17 at 13:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And indeed, the Euler product shows that there are no zeros for $\Re(s)>1$. $\endgroup$ – Chappers Apr 21 '17 at 13:43
  • $\begingroup$ And of course, $\frac{1}{1-p^{-s}}$ cannot be zero. $\endgroup$ – Jack D'Aurizio Apr 21 '17 at 13:43
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Jack and Chappers .. I didn't understand that the definition is only for Re(s)>1. Can you point me to a blog/website explaining why this is the case? $\endgroup$ – Tariq Rashid Apr 21 '17 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ And any pointers to learn about "analytic continuation" (for non-professional mathematicians) would be helpful. $\endgroup$ – Tariq Rashid Apr 21 '17 at 13:50
6
$\begingroup$

Even ignoring the analytic continuation issue, you've made a fundamental error: treating infinite products in the same way as finite products.

While it is true that if a product of finitely many terms is zero, then one of the terms must be zero, this is false when we consider infinite products. Consider the product $1\cdot {1\over 2}\cdot {1\over 3}\cdot ...$; it's easy to show that this equals zero, even though each term is positive.

Remember that - just like an infinite sum - an infinite product is defined as a limit: $$\prod_{i\in\mathbb{N}} a_i=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\prod_{i\le n} a_i.$$ If each $a_i$ is nonzero, then $\prod_{i\le n}a_i$ is nonzero - but the limit of a sequence of nonzero terms can be zero, so this doesn't stop the whole product from being zero.

(Along the same lines, you might consider why $0.999999...=1$ even though any finite sequence of $9s$ after the decimal point yields a number $<1$.)

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ thanks - that's the central point you've answered. $\endgroup$ – Tariq Rashid Apr 21 '17 at 14:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.