Please explain what are "the zeros of complex numbers"? What's the connection between known "functions which take the value of zero" and complex numbers?
Iago Silva But where's the imaginary component in that? Is it just implied that z must be imaginary, and if so, shouldn't it be specified how? If not, I don't see how the Rieman hypothesis can be proven...
@@Hallands. 8:23 "[...] certain complex numbers with _real_ part equal to 1/2". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function#Zeros,_the_critical_line,_and_the_Riemann_hypothesis
You have to multiply all primes before adding 1 to get a new prime. 1807=(2*3*7*43)+1 is just a number that you made sure isn't divisible by 2,3,7 or 43. If you want a prime you have to make sure it isn't divisible by any primes smaller than it. So (2*3*5*7*11*13*17*19*23*29*31*37*41*43)+1 is a primes because no prime is missing. In (2*3*7*43)+1 primes you include are not consecutive. 13 for example is missing which is why it is divisible by 13.
@@dalloslevente1202 Nope. Your number 13082761331670031 = (2*3*5*7*11*13*17*19*23*29*31*37*41*43)+1 is not prime, it is divisible by 167. My point was to show that the sequence of numbers you get by Euclid's method isn't a list of prime numbers, and as you've demonstrated, even if you use a sequential list of prime numbers starting from 2, you aren't even guaranteed to generate a prime number.
There is a recent research book that have Practically answered all the questions about Primes in addition to Formulas that give u an infinity of Primes!! Just bought it from Amazon: THE FORMULAS OF NONPRIMES REVEALING ALL THE PRIME NUMBERS
