Epilog:


I hope you have found this talk about the Riemann Hypothesis interesting.

The first zero, to 1000 decimal places

1/2 + i*14.134725141734693790457251983562470270784257115699243175685567
4601499634298092567649490103931715610127792029715487974367661426914698822545
8250536323944713778041338123720597054962195586586020055556672583601077
3700205410982661507542780517442591306254481978651072304938725629738321
5774203952157256748093321400349904680343462673144209203773854871413783
1735639699536542811307968053149168852906782082298049264338666734623320
0787587617920056048680543568014444246510655975686659032286865105448594
4432062407272703209427452221304874872092412385141835146054279015244783
3835425453344004487936806761697300819000731393854983736215013045167269
6838920039176285123212854220523969133425832275335164060169763527563758
9695376749203361272092599917304270756830879511844534891800863008264831
2516911271068291052375961797743181517071354531677549515382893784903647
4709727019948485532209253574357909226125247736595518016975233461213977
3160053541259267474557258778014726098308089786007125320875093959979666
60675378381214891908864977277554420656532052405

One of the latest near 10^22

1/2 + i * 1,370,919,909,931,995,308,226.68016095...



References:
The books I've used. 
 
Lots of web borrowing :)

Mostly, 
http://mathworld.wolfram.com
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/


My correspondence with a Rockmore, author Stalking
 

> Hello Dan
>
> I just finished your book, "Stalking the Riemann Hypothesis". I enjoyed it
> throughly. However I have become a self appointed critic of popular math and
> science books and have taken to providing feedback, unsolicited of course :)
> for lots of books.
>
> Of course you can trash this email at any point. I'm not a mathematician or
> even a scientist so these are just my opinions.
>
> 1) Page 131, Regarding Hardy and Littlewood. Second paragraph last sentence.
> It seems that the conclusion should be a lower bound. i.e. conclude that at
> "least" zero percent of the zeta zeros in the critical strip are actually on
> the critical line.
>
> 2) Page 149. My understanding is that Turing machines are used to provide
> lower bounds for problems and are not used not for the efficiency (upper
> bound) of a program which is a rendition of an algorithm used for solving a
> problem.
>
> 3) Page 229. think of a circle of radius one foot. If it is a perfect circle,
> its circumference would be equal to pi feet;   Ouch
>
> 4)  Page 264. Testing Primailty was shown to be NP in about 1976, SIAM, i.e.
> checking to see if a number is prime runs in time P. I remember that because
> I photocopied the paper about 5 years ago and was only able to read the
> abstract. The prime number generator of Agrawal et al. will "generate" a
> prime number in P. Of course, it is not blazing fast, in fact it is blazingly
> slow :) Big primes are generated nondeterministically, because those
> algorithms are fast.
>
> 5) My biggest problem, is that somewhere in the book the the Riemann Zeta
> function should appear :)
>
> If you are still reading, thanks. I am planning to give a lecture, in a
> couple of weeks which is basically a book review about  "Stalking the Riemann
> Hypothesis".
> Sincerely
> Bob McLeod

His Reply:
Dear Bob -

Thanks for the note. Comments are much appreciated. I think I already
caught the typos for the paperback!

With best regards,
Dan Rockmore



 

start

Last aside: If you want to explore the Riemann Zeta function try Mathematica or Maple.