A minor mistake
in [Math]
|
Prev: BP's the Man in Moon, Gulf, Alaska, ARCO etc. -- go with their cap&trade, or nationalize?
Next: Inequality with integrals
From: H. Shinya on 24 Jun 2010 00:17 I no longer have the source file for this preprint. Hence, let me point out here a minor mistake, which appears in pp. 7; "M > 1" should be put beneath the second summation symbol on the right side of (21), so that we do not calculate "n = 1"-term twice in the right. This correction adds, to successive equations, another term (+/-1)2^(-2x)Gamma(2x)2pi, (sign depending on the side on which it appears) which we know is analytic in some neighborhood of the line (1/2, \infty). (The same correction should be made in the equation (34).) In conclusion, this mistake is luckily not a fatal one.
From: H. Shinya on 24 Jun 2010 00:27
On Jun 24, 1:17 pm, "H. Shinya" <shinya...(a)yahoo.co.jp> wrote: > I no longer have the source file for this preprint. > > Hence, let me point out here a minor mistake, > > which appears in pp. 7; "M > 1" should be put beneath the second > summation symbol on > > the right side of (21), so that we do not calculate "n = 1"-term twice > in the right. > > This correction adds, to successive equations, another term > > (+/-1)2^(-2x)Gamma(2x)2pi, > > (sign depending on the side on which it appears) > > which we know is analytic in some neighborhood of > > the line (1/2, \infty). (The same correction should be > > made in the equation (34).) > > In conclusion, this mistake is luckily not a fatal one. This thread concerns another titled "Announcement on the Riemann hypothesis"; (I mistakenly started up another thread for the same topic. Sorry.) |