text:
# Device to loopback mic to headphones

I have an issue with my headset. I can’t stand not being able to hear myself speak. I’d like to build a passive device to loopback the mic to the headphones that would be plugged in-line between the headset and device, with a potentiometer to adjust the mic volume to headphones.

Would it be as simple as this?

Are additional fixed resistors required? I assume it would be a good idea to put something in series with the pot for when it is turned up fully, but I’m not sure what size..100ohm?

The headset speaker impedance is 32ohms each and the microphone impedance is 2200 ohms. I’m not sure of the impedances of the device, it can be assumed to be a typical laptop computer or smartphone.

As for power ratings, I assume the typical voltage at max volume would be less than 1V for the headphone jack on these devices. So, would a standard 0.06W dual gang logarithmic pot would be adequate for this application?

Appreciate the help on this.

EDIT

Thanks for everyone’s feedback. I’ve added an amplifier with variable gain for the mic input to the best of my understanding, but I’m not sure about splitting/mixing the signal. Will I be able to do this passively without any more amplifiers? Would anyone suggest different values for resistors/capacitors? Any other errors?

Thanks

EDIT 2: New question

I’m looking to create a circuit to add sidetone to a headset. Looking to add it to both right and left channels, with a volume adjustment. The circuit would be connected in-line between the headset and the device to which it is connected (laptop, smartphone, etc). The device would be powered by 2AA batteries.

The speakers on the headset are 32ohm and the microphone is 2200 ohm.

Questions:

Would this even work?

Could the number of amplifiers be reduced?

Could the number of pots be reduced? Note that there would probably be 3 off 2-gang pots, as there is no need for balancing between right and left. There is also no need for master volume control, but I’m worried I won’t be able to select the proper resistor value.

Are the resistors/pots/capacitors sizes critical? If so, any suggestions?

Is it even feasible to run this off 2AA batteries?

Is there any risk of damaging the headset/device?

Amplifier data sheet for reference: https://www.njr.com/semicon/PDF/NJM2113_E.pdf

EDIT 3

Since the amount of gain on preamp is unknown, would it make sense to add a potentiometer? If so, what min max values would you suggest?

Regarding your final statement on ground wiring, are you suggesting arranging the ground wires in a manner such as the below diagram:

EDIT 4

When the circuit is powered (3V on) the mic output to headset is loud and clear, but the mic output to the device is very muffled and quiet. When the circuit is not powered (3v off) the output to the device returns to normal (and nothing can be heard in headset as the speaker amps have no power, of course). Connected to oscilloscope to demonstrate. Mic is picking up a loud tone from a tone generator. Cursor shows where circuit is switched OFF.

Yellow - M+

Green - Preamp Term 4

Red - Preamp Term 5

Blue - Input of Volume Pot

When switched off, preamp output goes to zero, and M+ signal goes to normal.

Any suggestions for retaining signal quality at M+ when circuit is powered ON?

To answer previous question on mic voltages (headset connected directly to device):

Vrms = 1.54V

Vp-p quiet = 44-56 mV

Vp-p talking = ~80 mV

EDIT 5

Looking to clarify circuit:

Note I am using 100k POT for R1

• I believe what you are suggesting will turn you mic into a speaker. Apr 8, 2019 at 12:43
• The signal from your mic is too small to directly drive the headset speakers. You'll need to add an amplifier or do the loopback function in software (assuming there isn't too much latency). Apr 8, 2019 at 12:47
• Most likely whatever audio the computer is playing is fed back to computer mic input, and by the look of impedances involved, it will be louder than you talking to the mic. Apr 8, 2019 at 12:56
• The technical term is "sidetone". If you search for this term, you'll find all kinds of ways to achieve your goal -- some not requiring any hardware at all! Apr 8, 2019 at 13:09
• What are your headphones plugged into? A PC? May 13, 2019 at 1:42

Obviously you cannot feed the mic signal back with the available settings in "the device", so you need a mixer - one which accepts your mic signal as one mono input and the headphone signals as one stereo input. The mixer should be able to supply your mic with the common 1...3VDC, if the mic is of the usual electret type.

The stereo input should be able to handle headphone signal level, which is pretty much more than normal audio device line signals.

The mixer should be able to produce the needed output power for your headphones and split the mic signal to where it's actually used.

I bet someone has already invented this device and it's for sale somewhere. Unfortunately I do not know, where

If I needed it, I would build it - one battery, one dual audio amp IC, one potentiometer, few caps and few resistors and proper case+connectors, maybe also a battery switch if it cannot be a part of a connector.

Split = branch a wire as you have done, only be sure that the possible mic supply voltage DC from "the device" doesn't get into your own circuit. 1uF cap in your circuit does the separation, no need to add parts. Remove 10kOhm resistor between the mic wire and your own battery, the mic gets its DC from "the device". Find how to change your amp to be a summing amp which gets another signal from the headphone output of "the device". Let your headphones get signal only from your amp. Now you have very inefficient passive mixer, it's well possible you get too low volume to the headphones.

You need 2 amps if you want listen as stereo. If you accept mono listening, one amp is enough.

Your amp IC of choice NJM2113 is designed to make a bridged speaker amp. That cannot be utilized because from your own schematic I can see you seem to have only single ended (=L,R,GND) headphone wiring. But the output power can still be enough because you get over 1Vpp.

NJM2113 has low maximum voltage gain. I inserted a mic preamp. It's here:

Hopefully NJM2113 doesn't generate too much noise and stays stable with low current loads and the other bridge output as unloaded. How much gain you really need, that can only be guessed. Increasing R1 increase gain, decreasing R1 makes gain smaller. C1 should be reduced if there's still too much bass umble. If you want more bass, increase C1. I have assumed your mic system (=headset + "the device" together) look outwards as 2kOhm signal source and you get 5mV signal.

The mixer (only one amp is drawn, the +3V supply is common to all amps):

The mixer outputs headphone speaker voltage without amplification. Mic preamp output voltage is amplified to 2500%. At the output you see the common zobel circuit to ensure some resistive loading. Inductive headphones alone would easily make the circuit unstable. There's 100uF coupling caps for the headphones. Anything less will kill the bass. The battery has 100uF bypassing. I hope it's enough to prevent signal feedback via battery lines.

Hopefully you can make the wiring so that output's current doesn't go through the GND wires which feed input signal to the mic preamp IC. If not, do not expect stable function.

EDIT: This circuit has a trivial error. The preamp input is in current mode, it pulls the mic output signal to knees and the original audio device gets nothing altough in the headphones the signal is loud. It's fixed in the discussion. The idea is to change the preamp circuit to non-inverting which has high Z input. The questioner drew the fixed image for his Edit 5: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DZl1x.png

• @Pat Edit2,3,4 ....with better circuits are not clutter. Creating new question when the old was still incompletely solved is clutter. I know how to reduce the amps to 2. You get it as soon as you have removed the new branch and inserted the improved, but too complex version here. If someone other happens to answer something more useful than me, you can move the acceptance to him without obstacles or ask the moderator to do it. Apr 8, 2019 at 18:37
• @Pat NJM2113 isn't a best device for this purpose. It's bridged speaker amp with unnecessary complexity and quite low max. voltage gain. Do you already have a bunch of them (= they must be used, if possible)? Apr 8, 2019 at 19:05
• Ok. Key question: Do you know how many volts you can get out of your mic as peak to peak voltage? NJM2113 amplifies voltage maximally about 100..140 times. You need a mic preamp if you haven't at least 20mVpp output from the mic, which is much. I guess without screaming you get only few millivolts. Apr 8, 2019 at 19:57
• Check which causes the noise. Is it born in the mic or preamp or does it come fron "the device"? Disconnect C1 from the mic line and connect instead a 2,7 kOhm resistor between the free end of C1 and GND. Then remove the new resistor, insert the device only and finally the mic (it needs DC power from the device, I guess, but confirm) Apr 23, 2019 at 6:46
• @Pat It's my error. The preamp input works in low-impedance (=current) mode, It loads the mic signal to low voltage. You may hear it in your headphones, but the "device" gets much less than before. The simplest solution is to add a couple of kOhm resistor in series with preamp's C1. I'll try to find a better way to use the given IC. May 13, 2019 at 0:55

The headset speaker impedance is 32ohms each and the microphone impedance is 2200 ohms.

Most of your answer is in that statement. The mic and speakers will act as a potential divider of $$\ \frac {32}{2200+32} \$$ giving about 1.5% of the mic output (which was already a small signal) to the 32 Ω speakers. It won't work.

What you are seaking is called "sidetone" and was used in ordinary old-fashioned telephones so you might gain some insight by searching for telephone sidetone.

• Yes, that’s it! Thanks. Found some helpful info but not quite a working solution. I updated the original question, appreciate any new feedback you might have.
– Pat
Apr 8, 2019 at 15:58


text:
# Riemann hypothesis

{{#invoke:Hatnote|hatnote}}Template:Main other

The real part (red) and imaginary part (blue) of the Riemann zeta function along the critical line Re(s) = 1/2. The first non-trivial zeros can be seen at Im(s) = ±14.135, ±21.022 and ±25.011.

Template:Millennium Problems In mathematics, the Riemann hypothesis, proposed by Template:Harvs, is a conjecture that the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function all have real part 1/2. The name is also used for some closely related analogues, such as the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields.

The Riemann hypothesis implies results about the distribution of prime numbers. Along with suitable generalizations, some mathematicians consider it the most important unresolved problem in pure mathematics Template:Harv. The Riemann hypothesis, along with the Goldbach conjecture, is part of Hilbert's eighth problem in David Hilbert's list of 23 unsolved problems; it is also one of the Clay Mathematics Institute's Millennium Prize Problems.

The Riemann zeta function ζ(s) is a function whose argument s may be any complex number other than 1, and whose values are also complex. It has zeros at the negative even integers; that is, ζ(s) = 0 when s is one of −2, −4, −6, .... These are called its trivial zeros. However, the negative even integers are not the only values for which the zeta function is zero. The other ones are called non-trivial zeros. The Riemann hypothesis is concerned with the locations of these non-trivial zeros, and states that:

The real part of every non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function is {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||$B=1/2}}. Thus, if the hypothesis is correct, all the non-trivial zeros lie on the critical line consisting of the complex numbers {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||$B=1/2}} + iTemplate:Hspt, where t is a real number and i is the imaginary unit.

There are several nontechnical books on the Riemann hypothesis, such as Template:Harvtxt, Template:Harvtxt, Template:Harvs, Template:Harvtxt. The books Template:Harvtxt, Template:Harvtxt, Template:Harvtxt and Template:Harvtxt give mathematical introductions, while Template:Harvtxt, Template:Harvtxt and Template:Harvtxt are advanced monographs.

## Riemann zeta function

The Riemann zeta function is defined for complex s with real part greater than 1 by the absolutely convergent infinite series

${\displaystyle \zeta (s)=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{n^{s}}}={\frac {1}{1^{s}}}+{\frac {1}{2^{s}}}+{\frac {1}{3^{s}}}+\cdots .}$

Leonhard Euler showed that this series equals the Euler product

${\displaystyle \zeta (s)=\prod _{p{\text{ prime}}}{\frac {1}{1-p^{-s}}}={\frac {1}{1-2^{-s}}}\cdot {\frac {1}{1-3^{-s}}}\cdot {\frac {1}{1-5^{-s}}}\cdot {\frac {1}{1-7^{-s}}}\cdots {\frac {1}{1-p^{-s}}}\cdots }$

where the infinite product extends over all prime numbers p, and again converges for complex s with real part greater than 1. The convergence of the Euler product shows that ζ(s) has no zeros in this region, as none of the factors have zeros.

The Riemann hypothesis discusses zeros outside the region of convergence of this series, so it must be analytically continued to all complex s. This can be done by expressing it in terms of the Dirichlet eta function as follows. If the real part of s is greater than one, then the zeta function satisfies

${\displaystyle \left(1-{\frac {2}{2^{s}}}\right)\zeta (s)=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {(-1)^{n+1}}{n^{s}}}={\frac {1}{1^{s}}}-{\frac {1}{2^{s}}}+{\frac {1}{3^{s}}}-\cdots .}$

However, the series on the right converges not just when s is greater than one, but more generally whenever s has positive real part. Thus, this alternative series extends the zeta function from Re(s) > 1 to the larger domain Re(s) > 0, excluding the zeros ${\displaystyle s=1+2\pi in/\ln(2)}$ of ${\displaystyle 1-2/2^{s}}$ (see Dirichlet eta function). The zeta function can be extended to these values, as well, by taking limits, giving a finite value for all values of s with positive real part except for a simple pole at s = 1.

In the strip 0 < Re(s) < 1 the zeta function satisfies the functional equation

${\displaystyle \zeta (s)=2^{s}\pi ^{s-1}\ \sin \left({\frac {\pi s}{2}}\right)\ \Gamma (1-s)\ \zeta (1-s).}$

One may then define ζ(s) for all remaining nonzero complex numbers s by assuming that this equation holds outside the strip as well, and letting ζ(s) equal the right-hand side of the equation whenever s has non-positive real part. If s is a negative even integer then ζ(s) = 0 because the factor sin(πs/2) vanishes; these are the trivial zeros of the zeta function. (If s is a positive even integer this argument does not apply because the zeros of the sine function are cancelled by the poles of the gamma function as it takes negative integer arguments.) The value ζ(0) = −1/2 is not determined by the functional equation, but is the limiting value of ζ(s) as s approaches zero. The functional equation also implies that the zeta function has no zeros with negative real part other than the trivial zeros, so all non-trivial zeros lie in the critical strip where s has real part between 0 and 1.

## History

"…es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass alle Wurzeln reell sind. Hiervon wäre allerdings ein strenger Beweis zu wünschen; ich habe indess die Aufsuchung desselben nach einigen flüchtigen vergeblichen Versuchen vorläufig bei Seite gelassen, da er für den nächsten Zweck meiner Untersuchung entbehrlich schien.{{#invoke:Category handler|main}}"

"…it is very probable that all roots are real. Of course one would wish for a rigorous proof here; I have for the time being, after some fleeting vain attempts, provisionally put aside the search for this, as it appears dispensable for the next objective of my investigation."

Riemann's statement of the Riemann hypothesis, from Template:Harv. (He was discussing a version of the zeta function, modified so that its roots are real rather than on the critical line.)

In his 1859 paper On the Number of Primes Less Than a Given Magnitude Riemann found an explicit formula for the number of primes π(x) less than a given number x. His formula was given in terms of the related function

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Pi (x)&=\pi (x)+{\tfrac {1}{2}}\pi (x^{\frac {1}{2}})+{\tfrac {1}{3}}\pi (x^{\frac {1}{3}})+{\tfrac {1}{4}}\pi (x^{\frac {1}{4}})\\&\ \ \ \ +{\tfrac {1}{5}}\pi (x^{\frac {1}{5}})+{\tfrac {1}{6}}\pi (x^{\frac {1}{6}})+\cdots \end{aligned}}}

which counts the primes and prime powers up to x, counting a prime power pn as 1/n of a prime. The number of primes can be recovered from this function by

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\pi (x)&=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {\mu (n)}{n}}\Pi (x^{\frac {1}{n}})\\&=\Pi (x)-{\frac {1}{2}}\Pi (x^{\frac {1}{2}})-{\frac {1}{3}}\Pi (x^{\frac {1}{3}})-{\frac {1}{5}}\Pi (x^{\frac {1}{5}})\\&\ \ \ \ +{\frac {1}{6}}\Pi (x^{\frac {1}{6}})-\cdots ,\end{aligned}}}

where μ is the Möbius function. Riemann's formula is then

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Pi _{0}(x)&=\operatorname {Li} (x)-\sum _{\rho }\operatorname {Li} (x^{\rho })-\log(2)\\&\ \ \ \ +\int _{x}^{\infty }{\frac {dt}{t(t^{2}-1)\log(t)}}\end{aligned}}}

where the sum is over the nontrivial zeros of the zeta function and where Π0 is a slightly modified version of Π that replaces its value at its points of discontinuity by the average of its upper and lower limits:

${\displaystyle \Pi _{0}(x)=\lim _{\varepsilon \to 0}{\frac {\Pi (x-\varepsilon )+\Pi (x+\varepsilon )}{2}}.}$

The summation in Riemann's formula is not absolutely convergent, but may be evaluated by taking the zeros ρ in order of the absolute value of their imaginary part. The function Li occurring in the first term is the (unoffset) logarithmic integral function given by the Cauchy principal value of the divergent integral

${\displaystyle \operatorname {Li} (x)=\int _{0}^{x}{\frac {dt}{\log(t)}}.}$

The terms Li(xρ) involving the zeros of the zeta function need some care in their definition as Li has branch points at 0 and 1, and are defined (for x > 1) by analytic continuation in the complex variable ρ in the region Re(ρ) > 0, i.e. they should be considered as Ei(ρ ln x). The other terms also correspond to zeros: the dominant term Li(x) comes from the pole at s = 1, considered as a zero of multiplicity −1, and the remaining small terms come from the trivial zeros. For some graphs of the sums of the first few terms of this series see Template:Harvtxt or Template:Harvtxt.

This formula says that the zeros of the Riemann zeta function control the oscillations of primes around their "expected" positions. Riemann knew that the non-trivial zeros of the zeta function were symmetrically distributed about the line s = 1/2 + it, and he knew that all of its non-trivial zeros must lie in the range 0 ≤ Re(s) ≤ 1. He checked that a few of the zeros lay on the critical line with real part 1/2 and suggested that they all do; this is the Riemann hypothesis.

## Consequences of the Riemann hypothesis

The practical uses of the Riemann hypothesis include many propositions known true under the Riemann hypothesis, and some that can be shown equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis.

### Distribution of prime numbers

Riemann's explicit formula for the number of primes less than a given number in terms of a sum over the zeros of the Riemann zeta function says that the magnitude of the oscillations of primes around their expected position is controlled by the real parts of the zeros of the zeta function. In particular the error term in the prime number theorem is closely related to the position of the zeros: for example, the supremum of real parts of the zeros is the infimum of numbers β such that the error is O(xβ) Template:Harv.

Von Koch (1901) proved that the Riemann hypothesis implies the "best possible" bound for the error of the prime number theorem.

A precise version of Koch's result, due to Template:Harvtxt, says that the Riemann hypothesis implies

${\displaystyle |\pi (x)-\operatorname {Li} (x)|<{\frac {1}{8\pi }}{\sqrt {x}}\log(x),\qquad {\text{for all }}x\geq 2657.}$

Template:Harvtxt also showed that the Riemann hypothesis implies

${\displaystyle |\psi (x)-x|<{\frac {1}{8\pi }}{\sqrt {x}}\log ^{2}(x),\qquad {\text{for all }}x\geq 73.2,}$

where ψ(x) is Chebyshev's second function.

### Growth of arithmetic functions

The Riemann hypothesis implies strong bounds on the growth of many other arithmetic functions, in addition to the primes counting function above.

One example involves the Möbius function μ. The statement that the equation

${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\zeta (s)}}=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {\mu (n)}{n^{s}}}}$

is valid for every s with real part greater than 1/2, with the sum on the right hand side converging, is equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis. From this we can also conclude that if the Mertens function is defined by

${\displaystyle M(x)=\sum _{n\leq x}\mu (n)}$

then the claim that

${\displaystyle M(x)=O(x^{{\frac {1}{2}}+\varepsilon })}$

for every positive ε is equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis (J.E. Littlewood, 1912; see for instance: paragraph 14.25 in Template:Harvtxt). (For the meaning of these symbols, see Big O notation.) The determinant of the order n Redheffer matrix is equal to M(n), so the Riemann hypothesis can also be stated as a condition on the growth of these determinants. The Riemann hypothesis puts a rather tight bound on the growth of M, since Template:Harvtxt disproved the slightly stronger Mertens conjecture

${\displaystyle |M(x)|\leq {\sqrt {x}}.}$

The Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to many other conjectures about the rate of growth of other arithmetic functions aside from μ(n). A typical example is Robin's theorem Template:Harv, which states that if σ(n) is the divisor function, given by

${\displaystyle \sigma (n)=\sum _{d\mid n}d}$

then

${\displaystyle \sigma (n)

for all n > 5040 if and only if the Riemann hypothesis is true, where γ is the Euler–Mascheroni constant.

Another example was found by Jérôme Franel, and extended by Landau (see Template:Harvtxt). The Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to several statements showing that the terms of the Farey sequence are fairly regular. One such equivalence is as follows: if Fn is the Farey sequence of order n, beginning with 1/n and up to 1/1, then the claim that for all ε > 0

${\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{m}|F_{n}(i)-{\tfrac {i}{m}}|=O(n^{{\frac {1}{2}}+\epsilon })}$

is equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis. Here

${\displaystyle m=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\phi (i)}$

is the number of terms in the Farey sequence of order n.

For an example from group theory, if g(n) is Landau's function given by the maximal order of elements of the symmetric group Sn of degree n, then Template:Harvtxt showed that the Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to the bound

${\displaystyle \log g(n)<{\sqrt {\operatorname {Li} ^{-1}(n)}}}$

for all sufficiently large n.

### Lindelöf hypothesis and growth of the zeta function

The Riemann hypothesis has various weaker consequences as well; one is the Lindelöf hypothesis on the rate of growth of the zeta function on the critical line, which says that, for any ε > 0,

${\displaystyle \zeta \left({\frac {1}{2}}+it\right)=O(t^{\varepsilon }),}$

as t → ∞.

The Riemann hypothesis also implies quite sharp bounds for the growth rate of the zeta function in other regions of the critical strip. For example, it implies that

${\displaystyle e^{\gamma }\leq \limsup _{t\rightarrow +\infty }{\frac {|\zeta (1+it)|}{\log \log t}}\leq 2e^{\gamma }}$
${\displaystyle {\frac {6}{\pi ^{2}}}e^{\gamma }\leq \limsup _{t\rightarrow +\infty }{\frac {1/|\zeta (1+it)|}{\log \log t}}\leq {\frac {12}{\pi ^{2}}}e^{\gamma }}$

so the growth rate of ζ(1+it) and its inverse would be known up to a factor of 2 Template:Harv.

### Large prime gap conjecture

The prime number theorem implies that on average, the gap between the prime p and its successor is log p. However, some gaps between primes may be much larger than the average. Cramér proved that, assuming the Riemann hypothesis, every gap is O(√p log p). This is a case in which even the best bound that can be proved using the Riemann Hypothesis is far weaker than what seems true: Cramér's conjecture implies that every gap is O((log p)2), which, while larger than the average gap, is far smaller than the bound implied by the Riemann hypothesis. Numerical evidence supports Cramér's conjecture Template:Harv.

### Criteria equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis

Many statements equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis have been found, though so far none of them have led to much progress in proving (or disproving) it. Some typical examples are as follows. (Others involve the divisor function σ(n).)

The Riesz criterion was given by Template:Harvtxt, to the effect that the bound

${\displaystyle -\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }{\frac {(-x)^{k}}{(k-1)!\zeta (2k)}}=O\left(x^{{\frac {1}{4}}+\epsilon }\right)}$

holds for all ε > 0 if and only if the Riemann hypothesis holds.

Template:Harvtxt proved that the Riemann Hypothesis is true if and only if the space of functions of the form

${\displaystyle f(x)=\sum _{\nu =1}^{n}c_{\nu }\rho \left({\frac {\theta _{\nu }}{x}}\right)}$

where ρ(z) is the fractional part of z, 0 ≤ θν ≤ 1, and

${\displaystyle \sum _{\nu =1}^{n}c_{\nu }\theta _{\nu }=0}$,

is dense in the Hilbert space L2(0,1) of square-integrable functions on the unit interval. Template:Harvtxt extended this by showing that the zeta function has no zeros with real part greater than 1/p if and only if this function space is dense in Lp(0,1)

Template:Harvtxt showed that the Riemann hypothesis is true if and only if the integral equation

${\displaystyle \int _{0}^{\infty }{\frac {z^{-\sigma -1}\phi (z)\,dz}{{e^{x/z}}+1}}=0}$

has no non-trivial bounded solutions ${\displaystyle \phi }$ for ${\displaystyle 1/2<\sigma <1}$.

Weil's criterion is the statement that the positivity of a certain function is equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis. Related is Li's criterion, a statement that the positivity of a certain sequence of numbers is equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis.

Template:Harvtxt proved that the Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to the statement that ${\displaystyle \zeta '(s)}$, the derivative of ζ(s), has no zeros in the strip

${\displaystyle 0<\Re (s)<{\frac {1}{2}}.}$

That ζ has only simple zeros on the critical line is equivalent to its derivative having no zeros on the critical line.

### Consequences of the generalized Riemann hypothesis

Several applications use the generalized Riemann hypothesis for Dirichlet L-series or zeta functions of number fields rather than just the Riemann hypothesis. Many basic properties of the Riemann zeta function can easily be generalized to all Dirichlet L-series, so it is plausible that a method that proves the Riemann hypothesis for the Riemann zeta function would also work for the generalized Riemann hypothesis for Dirichlet L-functions. Several results first proved using the generalized Riemann hypothesis were later given unconditional proofs without using it, though these were usually much harder. Many of the consequences on the following list are taken from Template:Harvtxt.

• In 1913, Gronwall showed that the generalized Riemann hypothesis implies that Gauss's list of imaginary quadratic fields with class number 1 is complete, though Baker, Stark and Heegner later gave unconditional proofs of this without using the generalized Riemann hypothesis.
• In 1917, Hardy and Littlewood showed that the generalized Riemann hypothesis implies a conjecture of Chebyshev that
${\displaystyle \lim _{x\to 1^{-}}\sum _{p>2}(-1)^{(p+1)/2}x^{p}=+\infty ,}$
which says that in some sense primes 3 mod 4 are more common than primes 1 mod 4.
• In 1923 Hardy and Littlewood showed that the generalized Riemann hypothesis implies a weak form of the Goldbach conjecture for odd numbers: that every sufficiently large odd number is the sum of three primes, though in 1937 Vinogradov gave an unconditional proof. In 1997 Deshouillers, Effinger, te Riele, and Zinoviev showed that the generalized Riemann hypothesis implies that every odd number greater than 5 is the sum of three primes.
• In 1934, Chowla showed that the generalized Riemann hypothesis implies that the first prime in the arithmetic progression a mod m is at most Km2log(m)2 for some fixed constant K.
• In 1967, Hooley showed that the generalized Riemann hypothesis implies Artin's conjecture on primitive roots.
• In 1973, Weinberger showed that the generalized Riemann hypothesis implies that Euler's list of idoneal numbers is complete.
• Template:Harvtxt showed that the generalized Riemann hypothesis for the zeta functions of all algebraic number fields implies that any number field with class number 1 is either Euclidean or an imaginary quadratic number field of discriminant −19, −43, −67, or −163.
• In 1976, G. Miller showed that the generalized Riemann hypothesis implies that one can test if a number is prime in polynomial time via the Miller test. In 2002, Manindra Agrawal, Neeraj Kayal and Nitin Saxena proved this result unconditionally using the AKS primality test.
• Template:Harvtxt discussed how the generalized Riemann hypothesis can be used to give sharper estimates for discriminants and class numbers of number fields.
• Template:Harvtxt showed that the generalized Riemann hypothesis implies that Ramanujan's integral quadratic form x2 +y2 + 10z2 represents all integers that it represents locally, with exactly 18 exceptions.

### Excluded middle

Some consequences of the RH are also consequences of its negation, and are thus theorems. In their discussion of the Hecke, Deuring, Mordell, Heilbronn theorem, Template:Harv say

The method of proof here is truly amazing. If the generalized Riemann hypothesis is true, then the theorem is true. If the generalized Riemann hypothesis is false, then the theorem is true. Thus, the theorem is true!!     (punctuation in original)

Care should be taken to understand what is meant by saying the generalized Riemann hypothesis is false: one should specify exactly which class of Dirichlet series has a counterexample.

#### Littlewood's theorem

This concerns the sign of the error in the prime number theorem. It has been computed that π(x) < Li(x) for all x ≤ 1023, and no value of x is known for which π(x) > Li(x). See this table.

In 1914 Littlewood proved that there are arbitrarily large values of x for which

${\displaystyle \pi (x)>\operatorname {Li} (x)+{\frac {1}{3}}{\frac {\sqrt {x}}{\log x}}\log \log \log x,}$

and that there are also arbitrarily large values of x for which

${\displaystyle \pi (x)<\operatorname {Li} (x)-{\frac {1}{3}}{\frac {\sqrt {x}}{\log x}}\log \log \log x.}$

Thus the difference π(x) − Li(x) changes sign infinitely many times. Skewes' number is an estimate of the value of x corresponding to the first sign change.

Littlewood's proof is divided into two cases: the RH is assumed false (about half a page of Template:Harvnb), and the RH is assumed true (about a dozen pages).

#### Gauss's class number conjecture

This is the conjecture (first stated in article 303 of Gauss's Disquisitiones Arithmeticae) that there are only a finite number of imaginary quadratic fields with a given class number. One way to prove it would be to show that as the discriminant D → −∞ the class number h(D) → ∞.

The following sequence of theorems involving the Riemann hypothesis is described in Template:Harvnb:

Theorem (Hecke; 1918). Let D < 0 be the discriminant of an imaginary quadratic number field K. Assume the generalized Riemann hypothesis for L-functions of all imaginary quadratic Dirichlet characters. Then there is an absolute constant C such that

${\displaystyle h(D)>C{\frac {\sqrt {|D|}}{\log |D|}}.}$

Theorem (Deuring; 1933). If the RH is false then h(D) > 1 if |D| is sufficiently large.

Theorem (Mordell; 1934). If the RH is false then h(D) → ∞ as D → −∞.

Theorem (Heilbronn; 1934). If the generalized RH is false for the L-function of some imaginary quadratic Dirichlet character then h(D) → ∞ as D → −∞.

(In the work of Hecke and Heilbronn, the only L-functions that occur are those attached to imaginary quadratic characters, and it is only for those L-functions that GRH is true or GRH is false is intended; a failure of GRH for the L-function of a cubic Dirichlet character would, strictly speaking, mean GRH is false, but that was not the kind of failure of GRH that Heilbronn had in mind, so his assumption was more restricted than simply GRH is false.)

In 1935, Carl Siegel later strengthened the result without using RH or GRH in any way.

#### Growth of Euler's totient

In 1983 J. L. Nicolas proved Template:Harv that

${\displaystyle \varphi (n)

for infinitely many n, where φ(n) is Euler's totient function and γ is Euler's constant.

Ribenboim remarks that:

The method of proof is interesting, in that the inequality is shown first under the assumption that the Riemann hypothesis is true, secondly under the contrary assumption.

## Generalizations and analogs of the Riemann hypothesis

### Dirichlet L-series and other number fields

The Riemann hypothesis can be generalized by replacing the Riemann zeta function by the formally similar, but much more general, global L-functions. In this broader setting, one expects the non-trivial zeros of the global L-functions to have real part 1/2. It is these conjectures, rather than the classical Riemann hypothesis only for the single Riemann zeta function, which account for the true importance of the Riemann hypothesis in mathematics.

The generalized Riemann hypothesis extends the Riemann hypothesis to all Dirichlet L-functions. In particular it implies the conjecture that Siegel zeros (zeros of L-functions between 1/2 and 1) do not exist.

The extended Riemann hypothesis extends the Riemann hypothesis to all Dedekind zeta functions of algebraic number fields. The extended Riemann hypothesis for abelian extension of the rationals is equivalent to the generalized Riemann hypothesis. The Riemann hypothesis can also be extended to the L-functions of Hecke characters of number fields.

The grand Riemann hypothesis extends it to all automorphic zeta functions, such as Mellin transforms of Hecke eigenforms.

### Function fields and zeta functions of varieties over finite fields

Template:Harvtxt introduced global zeta functions of (quadratic) function fields and conjectured an analogue of the Riemann hypothesis for them, which has been proven by Hasse in the genus 1 case and by Template:Harvtxt in general. For instance, the fact that the Gauss sum, of the quadratic character of a finite field of size q (with q odd), has absolute value

${\displaystyle {\sqrt {q}}}$

is actually an instance of the Riemann hypothesis in the function field setting. This led Template:Harvtxt to conjecture a similar statement for all algebraic varieties; the resulting Weil conjectures were proven by Template:Harvs.

### Arithmetic zeta functions of arithmetic schemes and their L-factors

Arithmetic zeta functions generalise the Riemann and Dedekind zeta functions as well as the zeta functions of varieties over finite fields to every arithmetic scheme or a scheme of finite type over integers. The arithmetic zeta function of a regular connected equidimensional arithmetic scheme of Kronecker dimension n can be factorized into the product of appropriately defined L-factors and an auxiliary factor Template:Harvs. Assuming a functional equation and meromorphic continuation, the generalized Riemann hypothesis for the L-factor states that its zeros inside the critical strip ${\displaystyle \Re (s)\in (0,n)}$ lie on the central line. Correspondingly, the generalized Riemann hypothesis for the arithmetic zeta function of a regular connected equidimensional arithmetic scheme states that its zeros inside the critical strip lie on vertical lines ${\displaystyle \Re (s)=1/2,3/2,\dots ,n-1/2}$ and its poles inside the critical strip lie on vertical lines ${\displaystyle \Re (s)=1,2,\dots ,n-1}$. This is known for schemes in positive characteristic and follows from Template:Harvs, but remains entirely unknown in characteristic zero.

### Selberg zeta functions

{{#invoke:main|main}} Template:Harvtxt introduced the Selberg zeta function of a Riemann surface. These are similar to the Riemann zeta function: they have a functional equation, and an infinite product similar to the Euler product but taken over closed geodesics rather than primes. The Selberg trace formula is the analogue for these functions of the explicit formulas in prime number theory. Selberg proved that the Selberg zeta functions satisfy the analogue of the Riemann hypothesis, with the imaginary parts of their zeros related to the eigenvalues of the Laplacian operator of the Riemann surface.

### Ihara zeta functions

The Ihara zeta function of a finite graph is an analogue of the Selberg zeta function, which was first introduced by Yasutaka Ihara in the context of discrete subgroups of the two-by-two p-adic special linear group. A regular finite graph is a Ramanujan graph, a mathematical model of efficient communication networks, if and only if its Ihara zeta function satisfies the analogue of the Riemann hypothesis as was pointed out by T. Sunada.

### Montgomery's pair correlation conjecture

Template:Harvtxt suggested the pair correlation conjecture that the correlation functions of the (suitably normalized) zeros of the zeta function should be the same as those of the eigenvalues of a random hermitian matrix. Template:Harvtxt showed that this is supported by large scale numerical calculations of these correlation functions.

Montgomery showed that (assuming the Riemann hypothesis) at least 2/3 of all zeros are simple, and a related conjecture is that all zeros of the zeta function are simple (or more generally have no non-trivial integer linear relations between their imaginary parts). Dedekind zeta functions of algebraic number fields, which generalize the Riemann zeta function, often do have multiple complex zeros.{{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B= {{#invoke:Category handler|main}}{{#invoke:Category handler|main}}[citation needed] }} This is because the Dedekind zeta functions factorize as a product of powers of Artin L-functions, so zeros of Artin L-functions sometimes give rise to multiple zeros of Dedekind zeta functions. Other examples of zeta functions with multiple zeros are the L-functions of some elliptic curves: these can have multiple zeros at the real point of their critical line; the Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture predicts that the multiplicity of this zero is the rank of the elliptic curve. ### Other zeta functions There are many other examples of zeta functions with analogues of the Riemann hypothesis, some of which have been proved. Goss zeta functions of function fields have a Riemann hypothesis, proved by Template:Harvtxt. The main conjecture of Iwasawa theory, proved by Barry Mazur and Andrew Wiles for cyclotomic fields, and Wiles for totally real fields, identifies the zeros of a p-adic L-function with the eigenvalues of an operator, so can be thought of as an analogue of the Hilbert–Pólya conjecture for p-adic L-functions Template:Harv. ## Attempts to prove the Riemann hypothesis Several mathematicians have addressed the Riemann hypothesis, but none of their attempts have yet been accepted as correct solutions. Template:Harvtxt lists some incorrect solutions, and more are frequently announced. ### Operator theory {{#invoke:main|main}} Hilbert and Polya suggested that one way to derive the Riemann hypothesis would be to find a self-adjoint operator, from the existence of which the statement on the real parts of the zeros of ζ(s) would follow when one applies the criterion on real eigenvalues. Some support for this idea comes from several analogues of the Riemann zeta functions whose zeros correspond to eigenvalues of some operator: the zeros of a zeta function of a variety over a finite field correspond to eigenvalues of a Frobenius element on an étale cohomology group, the zeros of a Selberg zeta function are eigenvalues of a Laplacian operator of a Riemann surface, and the zeros of a p-adic zeta function correspond to eigenvectors of a Galois action on ideal class groups. Template:Harvtxt showed that the distribution of the zeros of the Riemann zeta function shares some statistical properties with the eigenvalues of random matrices drawn from the Gaussian unitary ensemble. This gives some support to the Hilbert–Pólya conjecture. In 1999, Michael Berry and Jon Keating conjectured that there is some unknown quantization ${\displaystyle {\hat {H}}}$ of the classical Hamiltonian H = xp so that ${\displaystyle \zeta (1/2+i{\hat {H}})=0}$ and even more strongly, that the Riemann zeros coincide with the spectrum of the operator ${\displaystyle 1/2+i{\hat {H}}}$. This is in contrast to canonical quantization, which leads to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ${\displaystyle [x,p]=1/2}$ and the natural numbers as spectrum of the quantum harmonic oscillator. The crucial point is that the Hamiltonian should be a self-adjoint operator so that the quantization would be a realization of the Hilbert–Pólya program. In a connection with this quantum mechanical problem Berry and Connes had proposed that the inverse of the potential of the Hamiltonian is connected to the half-derivative of the function ${\displaystyle N(s)={\frac {1}{\pi }}\operatorname {Arg} \xi (1/2+i{\sqrt {s}})}$ then, in Berry–Connes approach ${\displaystyle V^{-1}(x)={\sqrt {4\pi }}{\frac {d^{1/2}N(x)}{dx^{1/2}}}}$ Template:Harv. This yields to a Hamiltonian whose eigenvalues are the square of the imaginary part of the Riemann zeros, and also the functional determinant of this Hamiltonian operator is just the Riemann Xi function. In fact the Riemann Xi function would be proportional to the functional determinant (Hadamard product) ${\displaystyle \det(H+1/4+s(s-1))}$ as proven by Connes and others, in this approach ${\displaystyle {\frac {\xi (s)}{\xi (0)}}={\frac {\det(H+s(s-1)+1/4)}{\det(H+1/4)}}.}$ The analogy with the Riemann hypothesis over finite fields suggests that the Hilbert space containing eigenvectors corresponding to the zeros might be some sort of first cohomology group of the spectrum Spec(Z) of the integers. Template:Harvtxt described some of the attempts to find such a cohomology theory Template:Harv. Template:Harvtxt constructed a natural space of invariant functions on the upper half plane that has eigenvalues under the Laplacian operator that correspond to zeros of the Riemann zeta function—and remarked that in the unlikely event that one could show the existence of a suitable positive definite inner product on this space, the Riemann hypothesis would follow. Template:Harvtxt discussed a related example, where due to a bizarre bug a computer program listed zeros of the Riemann zeta function as eigenvalues of the same Laplacian operator. Template:Harvtxt surveyed some of the attempts to construct a suitable physical model related to the Riemann zeta function. ### Lee–Yang theorem The Lee–Yang theorem states that the zeros of certain partition functions in statistical mechanics all lie on a "critical line" with real part 0, and this has led to some speculation about a relationship with the Riemann hypothesis Template:Harv.Template:Elucidate ### Turán's result Template:Harvs showed that if the functions ${\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{N}n^{-s}}$ have no zeros when the real part of s is greater than one then ${\displaystyle T(x)=\sum _{n\leq x}{\frac {\lambda (n)}{n}}\geq 0{\text{ for }}x>0,}$ where λ(n) is the Liouville function given by (−1)r if n has r prime factors. He showed that this in turn would imply that the Riemann hypothesis is true. However Template:Harvtxt proved that T(x) is negative for infinitely many x (and also disproved the closely related Pólya conjecture), and Template:Harvtxt showed that the smallest such x is Template:Gaps. Template:Harvtxt showed by numerical calculation that the finite Dirichlet series above for N=19 has a zero with real part greater than 1. Turán also showed that a somewhat weaker assumption, the nonexistence of zeros with real part greater than 1+N−1/2+ε for large N in the finite Dirichlet series above, would also imply the Riemann hypothesis, but Template:Harvtxt showed that for all sufficiently large N these series have zeros with real part greater than 1 + (log log N)/(4 log N). Therefore, Turán's result is vacuously true and cannot be used to help prove the Riemann hypothesis. ### Noncommutative geometry Template:Harvs has described a relationship between the Riemann hypothesis and noncommutative geometry, and shows that a suitable analog of the Selberg trace formula for the action of the idèle class group on the adèle class space would imply the Riemann hypothesis. Some of these ideas are elaborated in Template:Harvtxt. ### Hilbert spaces of entire functions Template:Harvs showed that the Riemann hypothesis would follow from a positivity condition on a certain Hilbert space of entire functions. However Template:Harvtxt showed that the necessary positivity conditions are not satisfied. ### Quasicrystals The Riemann hypothesis implies that the zeros of the zeta function form a quasicrystal, meaning a distribution with discrete support whose Fourier transform also has discrete support. Template:Harvtxt suggested trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis by classifying, or at least studying, 1-dimensional quasicrystals. ### Arithmetic zeta functions of models of elliptic curves over number fields When one goes from geometric dimension one, e.g. an algebraic number field, to geometric dimension two, e.g. a regular model of an elliptic curve over a number field, the two-dimensional part of the generalized Riemann hypothesis for the arithmetic zeta function of the model deals with the poles of the zeta function. In dimension one the study of the zeta integral in Tate's thesis does not lead to new important information on the Riemann hypothesis. Contrary to this, in dimension two work of Ivan Fesenko on two-dimensional generalisation of Tate's thesis includes an integral representation of a zeta integral closely related to the zeta function. In this new situation, not possible in dimension one, the poles of the zeta function can be studied via the zeta integral and associated adele groups. Related conjecture of Template:Harvs on the positivity of the fourth derivative of a boundary function associated to the zeta integral essentially implies the pole part of the generalized Riemann hypothesis. Template:Harvs proved that the latter, together with some technical assumptions, implies Fesenko's conjecture. ### Multiple zeta functions Deligne's proof of the Riemann hypothesis over finite fields used the zeta functions of product varieties, whose zeros and poles correspond to sums of zeros and poles of the original zeta function, in order to bound the real parts of the zeros of the original zeta function. By analogy, Template:Harvtxt introduced multiple zeta functions whose zeros and poles correspond to sums of zeros and poles of the Riemann zeta function. To make the series converge he restricted to sums of zeros or poles all with non-negative imaginary part. So far, the known bounds on the zeros and poles of the multiple zeta functions are not strong enough to give useful estimates for the zeros of the Riemann zeta function. ## Location of the zeros ### Number of zeros The functional equation combined with the argument principle implies that the number of zeros of the zeta function with imaginary part between 0 and T is given by ${\displaystyle N(T)={\frac {1}{\pi }}\mathop {\mathrm {Arg} } (\xi (s))={\frac {1}{\pi }}\mathop {\mathrm {Arg} } (\Gamma ({\tfrac {s}{2}})\pi ^{-{\frac {s}{2}}}\zeta (s)s(s-1)/2)}$ for s=1/2+iT, where the argument is defined by varying it continuously along the line with Im(s)=T, starting with argument 0 at ∞+iT. This is the sum of a large but well understood term ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\pi }}\mathop {\mathrm {Arg} } (\Gamma ({\tfrac {s}{2}})\pi ^{-s/2}s(s-1)/2)={\frac {T}{2\pi }}\log {\frac {T}{2\pi }}-{\frac {T}{2\pi }}+7/8+O(1/T)}$ and a small but rather mysterious term ${\displaystyle S(T)={\frac {1}{\pi }}\mathop {\mathrm {Arg} } (\zeta (1/2+iT))=O(\log(T)).}$ So the density of zeros with imaginary part near T is about log(T)/2π, and the function S describes the small deviations from this. The function S(t) jumps by 1 at each zero of the zeta function, and for t ≥ 8 it decreases monotonically between zeros with derivative close to −log t. Karatsuba (1996) proved that every interval (T, T+H] for ${\displaystyle H\geq T^{{\frac {27}{82}}+\varepsilon }}$ contains at least ${\displaystyle H(\ln T)^{\frac {1}{3}}e^{-c{\sqrt {\ln \ln T}}}}$ points where the function S(t) changes sign. Template:Harvtxt showed that the average moments of even powers of S are given by ${\displaystyle \int _{0}^{T}|S(t)|^{2k}dt={\frac {(2k)!}{k!(2\pi )^{2k}}}T(\log \log T)^{k}+O(T(\log \log T)^{k-1/2}).}$ This suggests that S(T)/(log log T)1/2 resembles a Gaussian random variable with mean 0 and variance 2π2 (Template:Harvtxt proved this fact). In particular |S(T)| is usually somewhere around (log log T)1/2, but occasionally much larger. The exact order of growth of S(T) is not known. There has been no unconditional improvement to Riemann's original bound S(T)=O(log T), though the Riemann hypothesis implies the slightly smaller bound S(T)=O(log T/log log T) Template:Harv. The true order of magnitude may be somewhat less than this, as random functions with the same distribution as S(T) tend to have growth of order about log(T)1/2. In the other direction it cannot be too small: Template:Harvtxt showed that S(T) ≠ o((log T)1/3/(log log T)7/3), and assuming the Riemann hypothesis Montgomery showed that S(T) ≠ o((log T)1/2/(log log T)1/2). Numerical calculations confirm that S grows very slowly: |S(T)| < 1 for T < 280, |S(T)| < 2 for T < Template:Gaps, and the largest value of |S(T)| found so far is not much larger than 3 Template:Harv. Riemann's estimate S(T) = O(log T) implies that the gaps between zeros are bounded, and Littlewood improved this slightly, showing that the gaps between their imaginary parts tends to 0. ### Theorem of Hadamard and de la Vallée-Poussin Template:Harvtxt and Template:Harvtxt independently proved that no zeros could lie on the line Re(s) = 1. Together with the functional equation and the fact that there are no zeros with real part greater than 1, this showed that all non-trivial zeros must lie in the interior of the critical strip 0 < Re(s) < 1. This was a key step in their first proofs of the prime number theorem. Both the original proofs that the zeta function has no zeros with real part 1 are similar, and depend on showing that if ζ(1+it) vanishes, then ζ(1+2it) is singular, which is not possible. One way of doing this is by using the inequality ${\displaystyle |\zeta (\sigma )^{3}\zeta (\sigma +it)^{4}\zeta (\sigma +2it)|\geq 1}$ for σ > 1, t real, and looking at the limit as σ → 1. This inequality follows by taking the real part of the log of the Euler product to see that ${\displaystyle |\zeta (\sigma +it)|=\exp \Re \sum _{p^{n}}{\frac {p^{-n(\sigma +it)}}{n}}=\exp \sum _{p^{n}}{\frac {p^{-n\sigma }\cos(t\log p^{n})}{n}},}$ where the sum is over all prime powers pn, so that ${\displaystyle |\zeta (\sigma )^{3}\zeta (\sigma +it)^{4}\zeta (\sigma +2it)|=\exp \sum _{p^{n}}p^{-n\sigma }{\frac {3+4\cos(t\log p^{n})+\cos(2t\log p^{n})}{n}}}$ which is at least 1 because all the terms in the sum are positive, due to the inequality ${\displaystyle 3+4\cos(\theta )+\cos(2\theta )=2(1+\cos(\theta ))^{2}\geq 0.}$ ### Zero-free regions De la Vallée-Poussin (1899–1900) proved that if σ + iTemplate:Hspt is a zero of the Riemann zeta function, then 1 − σ ≥ {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||$B=C/log(t)}} for some positive constant C. In other words zeros cannot be too close to the line σ = 1: there is a zero-free region close to this line. This zero-free region has been enlarged by several authors using methods such as Vinogradov's mean-value theorem. Template:Harvtxt gave a version with explicit numerical constants: ζ(σ + iTemplate:Hspt ) ≠ 0 whenever Template:Nowrap begin|t | ≥ 3Template:Nowrap end and

${\displaystyle \sigma \geq 1-{\frac {1}{57.54(\log {|t|})^{2/3}(\log {\log {|t|}})^{1/3}}}.}$

## Zeros on the critical line

Template:Harvtxt and Template:Harvtxt showed there are infinitely many zeros on the critical line, by considering moments of certain functions related to the zeta function. Template:Harvtxt proved that at least a (small) positive proportion of zeros lie on the line. Template:Harvtxt improved this to one-third of the zeros by relating the zeros of the zeta function to those of its derivative, and Template:Harvtxt improved this further to two-fifths.

Most zeros lie close to the critical line. More precisely, Template:Harvtxt showed that for any positive ε, all but an infinitely small proportion of zeros lie within a distance ε of the critical line. Template:Harvtxt gives several more precise versions of this result, called zero density estimates, which bound the number of zeros in regions with imaginary part at most T and real part at least 1/2+ε.

### Hardy–Littlewood conjectures

In 1914 Godfrey Harold Hardy proved that ${\displaystyle \zeta \left({\tfrac {1}{2}}+it\right)}$ has infinitely many real zeros.

Let N(T) be the total number of real zeros, ${\displaystyle N_{0}(T)}$ be the total number of zeros of odd order of the function

${\displaystyle \zeta \left({\tfrac {1}{2}}+it\right),}$

lying on the interval (0, T].

The next two conjectures of Hardy and John Edensor Littlewood on the distance between real zeros of ${\displaystyle \zeta \left({\tfrac {1}{2}}+it\right)}$ and on the density of zeros of ${\displaystyle \zeta \left({\tfrac {1}{2}}+it\right)}$ on intervals (T, T+H] for sufficiently large T > 0, ${\displaystyle H=T^{a+\varepsilon }}$ and with as less as possible value of a > 0, where ε > 0 is an arbitrarily small number, open two new directions in the investigation of the Riemann zeta function:

1. for any ε > 0 there exists ${\displaystyle T_{0}=T_{0}(\varepsilon )>0}$ such that for ${\displaystyle T\geq T_{0}}$ and ${\displaystyle H=T^{0.25+\varepsilon }}$ the interval ${\displaystyle (T,T+H]}$ contains a zero of odd order of the function ${\displaystyle \zeta {\bigl (}{\tfrac {1}{2}}+it{\bigr )}}$.

2. for any ε > 0 there exist ${\displaystyle T_{0}=T_{0}(\varepsilon )>0}$ and c = c(ε) > 0, such that for ${\displaystyle T\geq T_{0}}$ and ${\displaystyle H=T^{0.5+\varepsilon }}$ the inequality ${\displaystyle N_{0}(T+H)-N_{0}(T)\geq cH}$ is true.

### Selberg conjecture

This paragragh is not on Selberg's 1/4 conjecture but on Selberg's zeta function conjecture.

Template:Harvs investigated the problem of Hardy–Littlewood 2 and proved that for any ε > 0 there exists such ${\displaystyle T_{0}=T_{0}(\varepsilon )>0}$ and c = c(ε) > 0, such that for ${\displaystyle T\geq T_{0}}$ and ${\displaystyle H=T^{0.5+\varepsilon }}$ the inequality ${\displaystyle N(T+H)-N(T)\geq cH\log T}$ is true. Selberg conjectured that this could be tightened to ${\displaystyle H=T^{0.5}}$. Template:Harvs proved that for a fixed ε satisfying the condition 0 < ε < 0.001, a sufficiently large T and ${\displaystyle H=T^{a+\varepsilon }}$, ${\displaystyle a={\tfrac {27}{82}}={\tfrac {1}{3}}-{\tfrac {1}{246}}}$, the interval (T, T+H) contains at least cHln(T) real zeros of the Riemann zeta function ${\displaystyle \zeta \left({\tfrac {1}{2}}+it\right)}$ and therefore confirmed the Selberg conjecture. The estimates of Selberg and Karatsuba can not be improved in respect of the order of growth as T → ∞.

Template:Harvtxt proved that an analog of the Selberg conjecture holds for almost all intervals (T, T+H], ${\displaystyle H=T^{\varepsilon }}$, where ε is an arbitrarily small fixed positive number. The Karatsuba method permits to investigate zeros of the Riemann zeta-function on "supershort" intervals of the critical line, that is, on the intervals (T, T+H], the length H of which grows slower than any, even arbitrarily small degree T. In particular, he proved that for any given numbers ε, ${\displaystyle \varepsilon _{1}}$ satisfying the conditions ${\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon ,\varepsilon _{1}<1}$ almost all intervals (T, T+H] for ${\displaystyle H\geq \exp {\{(\ln T)^{\varepsilon }\}}}$ contain at least ${\displaystyle H(\ln T)^{1-\varepsilon _{1}}}$ zeros of the function ${\displaystyle \zeta \left({\tfrac {1}{2}}+it\right)}$. This estimate is quite close to the one that follows from the Riemann hypothesis.

### Numerical calculations

Absolute value of the ζ-function

The function

${\displaystyle \pi ^{-{\frac {s}{2}}}\Gamma ({\tfrac {s}{2}})\zeta (s)}$

has the same zeros as the zeta function in the critical strip, and is real on the critical line because of the functional equation, so one can prove the existence of zeros exactly on the real line between two points by checking numerically that the function has opposite signs at these points. Usually one writes

${\displaystyle \zeta ({\tfrac {1}{2}}+it)=Z(t)e^{-i\theta (t)}}$

where Hardy's function Z and the Riemann–Siegel theta function θ are uniquely defined by this and the condition that they are smooth real functions with θ(0)=0. By finding many intervals where the function Z changes sign one can show that there are many zeros on the critical line. To verify the Riemann hypothesis up to a given imaginary part T of the zeros, one also has to check that there are no further zeros off the line in this region. This can be done by calculating the total number of zeros in the region and checking that it is the same as the number of zeros found on the line. This allows one to verify the Riemann hypothesis computationally up to any desired value of T (provided all the zeros of the zeta function in this region are simple and on the critical line).

Some calculations of zeros of the zeta function are listed below. So far all zeros that have been checked are on the critical line and are simple. (A multiple zero would cause problems for the zero finding algorithms, which depend on finding sign changes between zeros.) For tables of the zeros, see Template:Harvtxt or Template:Harvnb.

Year Number of zeros Author
1859? 3 B. Riemann used the Riemann–Siegel formula (unpublished, but reported in Template:Harvnb).
1903 15 J. P. Template:Harvtxt used Euler–Maclaurin summation and discovered Gram's law. He showed that all 10 zeros with imaginary part at most 50 range lie on the critical line with real part 1/2 by computing the sum of the inverse 10th powers of the roots he found.
1914 79 (γn ≤ 200) R. J. Template:Harvtxt {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst \$B=

{{#invoke:Category handler|main}}{{#invoke:Category handler|main}}[citation needed] }} introduced a better method of checking all the zeros up to that point are on the line, by studying the argument S(T) of the zeta function.

1925 138 (γn ≤ 300) J. I. Template:Harvtxt found the first failure of Gram's law, at the Gram point g126.
1935 195 E. C. Template:Harvtxt used the recently rediscovered Riemann–Siegel formula, which is much faster than Euler–Maclaurin summation. It takes about O(T3/2+ε) steps to check zeros with imaginary part less than T, while the Euler–Maclaurin method takes about O(T2+ε) steps.
1936 1041 E. C. Template:Harvtxt and L. J. Comrie were the last to find zeros by hand.
1953 1104 A. M. Template:Harvtxt found a more efficient way to check that all zeros up to some point are accounted for by the zeros on the line, by checking that Z has the correct sign at several consecutive Gram points and using the fact that S(T) has average value 0. This requires almost no extra work because the sign of Z at Gram points is already known from finding the zeros, and is still the usual method used. This was the first use of a digital computer to calculate the zeros.
1956 Template:Gaps D. H. Template:Harvtxt discovered a few cases where the zeta function has zeros that are "only just" on the line: two zeros of the zeta function are so close together that it is unusually difficult to find a sign change between them. This is called "Lehmer's phenomenon", and first occurs at the zeros with imaginary parts 7005.063 and 7005.101, which differ by only .04 while the average gap between other zeros near this point is about 1.
1956 Template:Gaps D. H. Lehmer
1958 Template:Gaps N. A. Meller
1966 Template:Gaps R. S. Lehman
1968 Template:Gaps Template:Harvtxt stated Rosser's rule (described below).
1977 Template:Gaps R. P. Brent
1979 Template:Gaps R. P. Brent
1982 Template:Gaps R. P. Brent, J. van de Lune, H. J. J. te Riele, D. T. Winter
1983 Template:Gaps J. van de Lune, H. J. J. te Riele
1986 Template:Gaps Template:Harvtxt gave some statistical data about the zeros and give several graphs of Z at places where it has unusual behavior.
1987 A few of large (~1012) height Template:Harvs computed smaller numbers of zeros of much larger height, around 1012, to high precision to check Montgomery's pair correlation conjecture.
1992 A few of large (~1020) height Template:Harvs computed a 175 million zeroes of heights around 1020 and a few more of heights around 2Template:E, and gave an extensive discussion of the results.
1998 10000 of large (~1021) height Template:Harvs computed some zeros of height about 1021
2001 Template:Gaps J. van de Lune (unpublished)
2004 Template:Gaps S. Wedeniwski (ZetaGrid distributed computing)
2004 Template:Gaps and a few of large (up to ~1024) heights X. Template:Harvtxt and Patrick Demichel used the Odlyzko–Schönhage algorithm. They also checked two billion zeros around heights 1013, 1014, ..., 1024.

### Gram points

A Gram point is a point on the critical line 1/2 + it where the zeta function is real and non-zero. Using the expression for the zeta function on the critical line, ζ(1/2 + it) = Z(t)e − iθ(t), where Hardy's function, Z, is real for real t, and θ is the Riemann–Siegel theta function, we see that zeta is real when sin(θ(t)) = 0. This implies that θ(t) is an integer multiple of π, which allows for the location of Gram points to be calculated fairly easily by inverting the formula for θ. They are usually numbered as gn for n = 0, 1, ..., where gn is the unique solution of θ(t) = nπ.

Gram observed that there was often exactly one zero of the zeta function between any two Gram points; Hutchinson called this observation Gram's law. There are several other closely related statements that are also sometimes called Gram's law: for example, (−1)nZ(gn) is usually positive, or Z(t) usually has opposite sign at consecutive Gram points. The imaginary parts γn of the first few zeros (in blue) and the first few Gram points gn are given in the following table

 g−1 γ1 g0 γ2 g1 γ3 g2 γ4 g3 γ5 g4 γ6 g5 0.000 3.436 9.667 14.135 17.846 21.022 23.170 25.011 27.670 30.425 31.718 32.935 35.467 37.586 38.999
This shows the values of ζ(1/2+it) in the complex plane for 0 ≤ t ≤ 34. (For t=0, ζ(1/2) ≈ -1.460 corresponds to the leftmost point of the red curve.) Gram's law states that the curve usually crosses the real axis once between zeros.

The first failure of Gram's law occurs at the 127'th zero and the Gram point g126, which are in the "wrong" order.

 γ127 282.465 g124 γ126 g125 g126 γ128 g127 γ129 g128 279.148 279.229 280.802 282.455 283.211 284.104 284.836 285.752

A Gram point t is called good if the zeta function is positive at 1/2 + it. The indices of the "bad" Gram points where Z has the "wrong" sign are 126, 134, 195, 211, ... (sequence A114856 in OEIS). A Gram block is an interval bounded by two good Gram points such that all the Gram points between them are bad. A refinement of Gram's law called Rosser's rule due to Template:Harvtxt says that Gram blocks often have the expected number of zeros in them (the same as the number of Gram intervals), even though some of the individual Gram intervals in the block may not have exactly one zero in them. For example, the interval bounded by g125 and g127 is a Gram block containing a unique bad Gram point g126, and contains the expected number 2 of zeros although neither of its two Gram intervals contains a unique zero. Rosser et al. checked that there were no exceptions to Rosser's rule in the first 3 million zeros, although there are infinitely many exceptions to Rosser's rule over the entire zeta function.

Gram's rule and Rosser's rule both say that in some sense zeros do not stray too far from their expected positions. The distance of a zero from its expected position is controlled by the function S defined above, which grows extremely slowly: its average value is of the order of (log log T)1/2, which only reaches 2 for T around 1024. This means that both rules hold most of the time for small T but eventually break down often. Indeed Template:Harvtxt showed that both Gram's law and Rosser's rule fail in a positive proportion of cases. To be specific, it is expected that in about 73% one zero is enclosed by two successive Gram points, but in 14% no zero and in 13% two zeros are in such a Gram-interval on the long run.

## Arguments for and against the Riemann hypothesis

Mathematical papers about the Riemann hypothesis tend to be cautiously noncommittal about its truth. Of authors who express an opinion, most of them, such as Template:Harvtxt or Template:Harvtxt, imply that they expect (or at least hope) that it is true. The few authors who express serious doubt about it include Template:Harvtxt who lists some reasons for being skeptical, and Template:Harvtxt who flatly states that he believes it is false, and that there is no evidence whatever for it and no imaginable reason that it would be true. The consensus of the survey articles (Template:Harvnb, Template:Harvnb, and Template:Harvnb) is that the evidence for it is strong but not overwhelming, so that while it is probably true there is some reasonable doubt about it.

Some of the arguments for (or against) the Riemann hypothesis are listed by Template:Harvtxt, Template:Harvtxt, and Template:Harvtxt, and include the following reasons.

• Several analogues of the Riemann hypothesis have already been proved. The proof of the Riemann hypothesis for varieties over finite fields by Template:Harvtxt is possibly the single strongest theoretical reason in favor of the Riemann hypothesis. This provides some evidence for the more general conjecture that all zeta functions associated with automorphic forms satisfy a Riemann hypothesis, which includes the classical Riemann hypothesis as a special case. Similarly Selberg zeta functions satisfy the analogue of the Riemann hypothesis, and are in some ways similar to the Riemann zeta function, having a functional equation and an infinite product expansion analogous to the Euler product expansion. However there are also some major differences; for example they are not given by Dirichlet series. The Riemann hypothesis for the Goss zeta function was proved by Template:Harvtxt. In contrast to these positive examples, however, some Epstein zeta functions do not satisfy the Riemann hypothesis, even though they have an infinite number of zeros on the critical line Template:Harv. These functions are quite similar to the Riemann zeta function, and have a Dirichlet series expansion and a functional equation, but the ones known to fail the Riemann hypothesis do not have an Euler product and are not directly related to automorphic representations.
• At first, the numerical verification that many zeros lie on the line seems strong evidence for it. However, analytic number theory has had many conjectures supported by large amounts of numerical evidence that turn out to be false. See Skewes number for a notorious example, where the first exception to a plausible conjecture related to the Riemann hypothesis probably occurs around 10316; a counterexample to the Riemann hypothesis with imaginary part this size would be far beyond anything that can currently be computed using a direct approach. The problem is that the behavior is often influenced by very slowly increasing functions such as log log T, that tend to infinity, but do so so slowly that this cannot be detected by computation. Such functions occur in the theory of the zeta function controlling the behavior of its zeros; for example the function S(T) above has average size around (log log T)1/2 . As S(T) jumps by at least 2 at any counterexample to the Riemann hypothesis, one might expect any counterexamples to the Riemann hypothesis to start appearing only when S(T) becomes large. It is never much more than 3 as far as it has been calculated, but is known to be unbounded, suggesting that calculations may not have yet reached the region of typical behavior of the zeta function.
• Denjoy's probabilistic argument for the Riemann hypothesis Template:Harv is based on the observation that if μ(x) is a random sequence of "1"s and "−1"s then, for every ε > 0, the partial sums
${\displaystyle M(x)=\sum _{n\leq x}\mu (n)}$
(the values of which are positions in a simple random walk) satisfy the bound
${\displaystyle M(x)=O(x^{1/2+\varepsilon })}$
with probability 1. The Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to this bound for the Möbius function μ and the Mertens function M derived in the same way from it. In other words, the Riemann hypothesis is in some sense equivalent to saying that μ(x) behaves like a random sequence of coin tosses. When μ(x) is non-zero its sign gives the parity of the number of prime factors of x, so informally the Riemann hypothesis says that the parity of the number of prime factors of an integer behaves randomly. Such probabilistic arguments in number theory often give the right answer, but tend to be very hard to make rigorous, and occasionally give the wrong answer for some results, such as Maier's theorem.
• The calculations in Template:Harvtxt show that the zeros of the zeta function behave very much like the eigenvalues of a random Hermitian matrix, suggesting that they are the eigenvalues of some self-adjoint operator, which would imply the Riemann hypothesis. However all attempts to find such an operator have failed.
• There are several theorems, such as the weak Goldbach conjecture for sufficiently large odd numbers, that were first proved using the generalized Riemann hypothesis, and later shown to be true unconditionally. This could be considered as weak evidence for the generalized Riemann hypothesis, as several of its "predictions" turned out to be true.
• Lehmer's phenomenon Template:Harv where two zeros are sometimes very close is sometimes given as a reason to disbelieve in the Riemann hypothesis. However one would expect this to happen occasionally just by chance even if the Riemann hypothesis were true, and Odlyzko's calculations suggest that nearby pairs of zeros occur just as often as predicted by Montgomery's conjecture.
• Template:Harvtxt suggests that the most compelling reason for the Riemann hypothesis for most mathematicians is the hope that primes are distributed as regularly as possible.

{{#invoke:Portal|portal}}

## References

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Reprinted in Template:Harv.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Reprinted in Template:Harv.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Reprinted in Template:Harv.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Reprinted in Template:Harv.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Reprinted in Template:Harv.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Review

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}. Reprinted 1990, ISBN 978-0-521-39789-6, Template:MathSciNet

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} (Reprinted by Dover 2003)

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Reprinted in Template:Harv.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} This unpublished book describes the implementation of the algorithm and discusses the results in detail.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}. In Gesammelte Werke, Teubner, Leipzig (1892), Reprinted by Dover, New York (1953). Original manuscript (with English translation). Reprinted in Template:Harv and Template:Harv

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Reprinted in Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Vol. 1. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1966.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Reprinted in Template:Harv.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Reprinted in Template:Harv.

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Reprinted in Oeuvres Scientifiques/Collected Papers by Andre Weil ISBN 0-387-90330-5

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }}

• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=citation }} Template:Refend

format: plain


text:
Does a body have to compress to its Schwarzschild radius to become a black hole?

When something is compressed to within its Schwarzschild radius, it will compress to a singularity within finite time regardless of what forces are involved. But is there some lesser point at which neutron degenerate matter won't be able to support itself? It takes a lot of mass to make a Schwarzschild radius larger than an atom, but is that actually necessary to make a black hole?

• We don't know. The only black holes we know about are stellar size or larger. If smaller chunks of matter can be compressed to a black hole, at all, is experimentally untested. You can, of course, extrapolate general relativity and deal with the question as a matter of faith in a theory that hasn't failed, yet. – CuriousOne Jun 10 '15 at 22:02

The answer you your question is no. There is a radius, larger than the Schwarzschild radius at which a neutron star, quark matter, whatever its equation of state, cannot be supported against collapse.

There are limits imposed by causality and General Relativity on the structure of compact stars. In "Black Holes, White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars" by Shapiro & Teukolsky, pp.260-261, it is shown, approximately, that even if the equation of state hardens to the point where the speed of sound equals the speed of light, that $(GM/Rc^2)<0.405$.

The Schwarzschild radius is $R_s=2GM/c^2$ and therefore $R > 1.23 R_s$ for stability. This limit is reached for a neutron star with $M \simeq 3.5 M_{\odot}$. A more accurate treatment in Lattimer (2013) suggests that a maximally compact neutron star has $R\geq 1.41R_s$.

If the equation of state is softer, then collapse will occur at smaller masses, and higher densities but at a similar multiple of $R_s$.

Thus it is not necessary to compress matter within $R_s$ to form a black hole.

The picture below (from Demorest et al. 2010) shows the mass-radius relations for a wide variety of equations of state. The limits in the top-left of the diagram indicate the limits imposed by (most stringently) the speed of sound being the speed of light (labelled "causality" and which gives radii slightly larger than Shapiro & Teukolsky's approximate result) and then in the very top left, the border marked by "GR" coincides with the Schwarzschild radius. Neutron stars become unstable where their mass-radius curves peak, so stable neutron stars are always significantly larger than $R_s$ at all masses.

• That's a very nice diagram. We still have to extrapolate down from neutron star mass to an arbitrary mass to answer the question, though. Do we have any observation suggesting that smaller bodies can become black holes? – CuriousOne Jun 10 '15 at 22:49
• @CuriousOne My answer does answer the question posed in the title: i.e. No. Observationally it is found that all black holes are more massive than $4M_{\odot}$. There is a clear gap between the most massive neutron stars and the least massive black holes, that is not decisively explained yet. There are no stable, self-gravitating solutions for neutron matter below about $0.15M_{\odot}$. – Rob Jeffries Jun 10 '15 at 22:59

If the supernova remnant is less than about 3 solar masses, a neutron star will be the result. Neutron degeneracy will hold up the star, just as electron degeneracy holds up a white dwarf. Gravity wants to crush the neutrons out of existence, but neutrons are fairly solid, and push back. However, if the mass of the supernova remnant is greater than about 3 solar masses, the greater gravity will crush even the neutrons out of of existence. If this were to happen, the star would collapse further. In fact, if neutrons are crushed out of existence, then we know of no other force that can resist the crush of gravity. The star will, in theory, collapse all the way down to a black hole

• The maximum mass supportable by ideal neutron degeneracy pressure is $0.7M_{\odot}$. More massive neutron stars exist because of the strong repulsion between nucleons in asymmetric nuclear matter. The upper limit for a stable neutron star is at least $2M_{\odot}$ and less than $3.5M_{\odot}$, but where between these limits is currently unknown. – Rob Jeffries Jun 10 '15 at 22:25
• A supernova remnant is actually the ejecta from the supernova event. You want compact object here (sometimes stellar remnant is used). – Kyle Kanos Jun 10 '15 at 22:29
• And how close does it have to get to the Schwarzschild radius to get that to happen? – DanielLC Jun 10 '15 at 23:39


text:
Consumer Leverage Ratio
Get Consumer Leverage Ratio essential facts below. View Videos or join the Consumer Leverage Ratio discussion. Add Consumer Leverage Ratio to your Like2do.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Consumer Leverage Ratio

The consumer leverage ratio, a concept popularized by William Jarvis and Dr. Ian C MacMillan in a series of articles in the Harvard Business Review, is the ratio of total household debt, as reported by the Federal Reserve System, to disposable personal income, as reported by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.[1] The ratio has been used in economic analysis and reporting and has been compared to other relevant economic variables since the 1970s.

## Overview

The concept in a variety of other forms has been used to quantify the amount of debt the average American consumer has, relative to his/her disposable income.[2] As of the fourth quarter of 2016, the ratio in the US stood at 1.04x, down from highs of 1.29x seen in 2007. The historical average ratio since late 1975 is approximately 0.9x.

Many economists argue the rapid growth in consumer leverage has been the primary fuel of corporate earnings growth in the past few decades and thus represents significant economic risk and reward to the US economy. Jarvis and MacMillan quantify this risk within specific businesses and industries in a ratio form as Consumer Leverage Exposure (CLE).

## Formula

${\displaystyle {\mbox{Consumer leverage ratio}}={{\mbox{Total household debt}} \over {\mbox{Disposable personal income}}}}$

In essence, the CLR demonstrates how many years it would take on average to pay off the debt in full if the whole annual disposable income were used to do so. The consumer leverage ratio in the US was increasing in the years prior to the financial crisis of 2008, peaking at 1.29 and decreasing ever since.