# nt.number theory – What are some consequences of zero free strip of the Riemann zeta function?

I don’t feel familiar enough with Eisenstein series to point out the exact line which is wrong, but the argument in page 7 which claims to show that all zeroes of the Riemann zeta function cannot have real part between $$frac{1}{2} – h$$ and $$frac{1}{2}$$ works equally well at proving that no zero of the Riemann zeta function has real part $$frac{1}{2}$$, which is of course false.

I believe that the part that is false is the fact that if $$zeta left( ς right) = 0$$ then $$E(z, 1 − ς) = 0$$, and in fact the functional equation for $$E^{*} (z, s)$$ seems a bit off to me, but if someone who knows a bit more than me cares to check then we can know for sure.

Anyway, this result, if it were true, would be a huge breakthrough in number theory. The most direct improvement would of course be a power savings in the error term of $$lvert pi (x) – mathrm{Li} (x) rvert$$, but there are many more applications for such things. For example, this would imply that $$zeta left( sigma + i t right) = mathcal{O} left( lvert t rvert^{varepsilon} right)$$ for $$sigma geq 1 – 2 h$$, which is a significant improvement on Heath-Brown’s bound $$zeta left( sigma + i t right) = mathcal{O} left( lvert t rvert^{frac{1}{2} (1 – sigma)^{frac{3}{2}} + varepsilon} right)$$, which (if I recall correctly) is the currently best known bound for values close to $$sigma = 1$$. Bounds like this are very useful in all types of applications, where integrals containing the zeta function appear.

Of course, this is just one of many and varied consequences.

Posted on Categories Articles