A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN

HYPOTHESIS

YUKITAKA ABE

Abstract. We prove the Riemann hypothesis by a new analytic

approach.

1. Introduction
The Riemann zeta function ζ(s) is defined on σ > 1 by
∞
X 1
ζ(s) = s
,
n=1
n
where s = σ+it. It is analytically continued to a meromorphic function
on the whole plane with a pole at s = 1. It is well-known that negative
even integers are zeros of ζ(s). Other zeros of ζ(s) are called complex
zeros or nontrivial zeros.
Riemann stated the following statement, the so-called Riemann hy-
pothesis, in [6] in 1859.

The Riemann hypothesis. All nontrivial zeros of ζ(s) lie on the

critical line σ = 12 .

Hilbert listed it as the eighth problem of his 23 problems in his 1900

address to the Paris International Congress of Mathematicians. This
is one of the most important unsolved problems in the twenty-first
century.
Nobody has succeeded to prove it up to the present, but many com-
putational results are known. In the early part of the twentieth century,
they were obtained by hand computation ([1], [4], [5] and [7]). Numer-
ical computations by computers have permitted us to check the truth
of the Riemann hypothesis to extremely large t. We refer to [3] for a
history of numerical verifications.
We will obtain further results with the development of computers
and numerical methods. However, we can never reach to the goal in
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. 11M26.
Key words and phrases. Riemann hypothesis.
1
2 YUKITAKA ABE

this way. We have to analyze the behaviour of the zeta function or the
xi function for larger t than a fixed t0 . For this purpose, we expand the
real part and the imaginary part of the integration in a representation
of the xi function into sums of powers of 1/t in Section 3. The precise
representations of these parts are given in Section 6. We derive an
equation which is satisfied if s is a zero of the xi function. We give a
new zero-free region of ζ(s) by the above expansions and equation in
Section 8. Let B be the supremum of the real parts of nontrivial zeros.
Combining our new zero-free region with the theorem of de la Vallée
Poussin, we first show 12 ≤ B < 1. In Section 9 we give a lemma on
Dirichlet series. It plays an important role to show that if 21 < B < 1,
then there is no zero of ζ(s) on the line σ = B. We conclude B = 12 by
this fact and our new zero-free region.

2. Preliminaries
The xi function ξ(s) of Riemann is defined by
s s
s
ξ(s) = (s − 1)π − 2 Γ ζ(s).
2 2
It is an entire function and satisfies the functional equation ξ(s) =
ξ(1 − s). It also satisfies ξ(s) = ξ(s). The set of nontrivial zeros of ζ(s)
coincides with the set of zeros of ξ(s). Therefore, if s is a nontrivial
zero of ζ(s), then s, 1 − s and 1 − s are also zeros of ζ(s).
The function ξ(s) has the following integral representation
Z ∞
1 s s 1 s
(2.1) ξ(s) = + (s − 1) (x− 2 − 2 + x 2 −1 )ψ(x)dx,
2 2 1
P∞ −πn2 x
where ψ(x) = n=1 e (for example, see p.22 in [8]).
Let Z ∞
s 1 s
Φ(s) = (x− 2 − 2 + x 2 −1 )ψ(x)dx.
1
We denote by R(s) = ReΦ(s) and I(s) = ImΦ(s) the real part and the
imaginary part of Φ(s), respectively. Since
1 1

Reξ(s) = + Re (s(s − 1)Φ(s)) ,

2 2
1
Imξ(s) = Im (s(s − 1)Φ(s)) ,

2
we have that ξ(s) = 0 if and only if
(
1 + (σ(σ − 1) − t2 )R(s) − t(2σ − 1)I(s) = 0,
(2.2)
t(2σ − 1)R(s) + (σ(σ − 1) − t2 )I(s) = 0.
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 3

Solving (2.2) for R(s) and I(s), we obtain

t2 − σ(σ − 1)


 R(s) = ,
 (σ(σ − 1) − t2 )2 + t2 (2σ − 1)2
(2.3)
 t(2σ − 1)
 I(s) =
 .
(σ(σ − 1) − t2 )2 + t2 (2σ − 1)2
Therefore, ξ(s) = 0 if and only if (2.3) holds.

3. Expansions of R(s) and I(s)

We have
Z ∞  
σ
−1 − σ2 − 12 t
R(s) = (x 2 +x ) cos log x ψ(x)dx
1 2
and Z ∞  
σ
−1 − σ2 − 12 t
I(s) = (x 2 −x ) sin log x ψ(x)dx.
1 2
First we expand R(s). We set
σ σ 1
f0 (x) := (x 2 + x− 2 + 2 )ψ(x).
Using integration by parts and
    
d 2 t −1 t
sin log x = x cos log x ,
dx t 2 2
we obtain
2 ∞
Z  
t
R(s) = − sin log x f0′ (x)dx.
t 1 2
Let f1 (x) := xf0′ (x). Then we have
Z ∞   Z ∞  
t ′ −1 t
sin log x f0 (x)dx = x sin log x f1 (x)dx
1 2 1 2
2 ∞
Z  
2 t
= f1 (1) + cos log x f1′ (x)dx
t t 1 2
′
by integration by parts. We inductively define fk (x) := xfk−1 (x) for
k = 1, 2, . . . . By the same way as above, we obtain
(3.1)
 2  4  6  8
2 2 2 2
R(s) = − f1 (1) + f3 (1) − f5 (1) + f7 (1)
t t t t
 9 Z ∞  
2 t
− sin log x f8′ (x)dx.
t 1 2
4 YUKITAKA ABE
σ
We use the same argument for I(s). We define g0 (x) := (x 2 −
− σ2 + 12 ′
x )ψ(x) and gk (x) := xgk−1 (x) for k = 1, 2, . . . . Then, we similarly
obtain
(3.2)
 3  5  7  9
2 2 2 2
I(s) = − g2 (1) + g4 (1) − g6 (1) + g8 (1)
t t t t
 10 Z ∞  
2 t
− sin log x g9′ (x)dx
t 1 2
by integration by parts.

4. Functions fk (x), fk′ (x), gk (x) and gk′ (x)

We collect precise forms of fk (x), fk′ (x), gk (x) and gk′ (x) in this sec-
tion. By a direct calculation we obtain the following formulas

   
σ σ −1 σ 1 σ 1
f0′ (x) = x2 + − + − −
x 2 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
 σ 
− σ2 + 12
+ x +x
2 ψ (1) (x),

   
σ σ σ 1 − σ2 + 12
f1 (x) = x + − +
2 x ψ(x)
2 2 2
 σ σ 3

+ x 2 +1 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (1) (x),

(  2 )
 σ 2 σ σ 1 σ 1
f1′ (x) = x 2
−1
+ − + x− 2 − 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
n σ
o
− σ2 + 12
+ (σ + 1)x + (−σ + 2)x
2 ψ (1) (x)
 σ σ 3

+ x 2 +1 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (2) (x),

(  2 )
 σ 2 σ σ 1 σ 1
f2 (x) = x + − +
2 x− 2 + 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
n σ
o
+1 − σ2 + 32
+ (σ + 1)x 2 + (−σ + 2)x ψ (1) (x)
 σ σ 5

+ x 2 +2 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (2) (x),
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 5

(  3 )
 σ 3 σ σ 1 σ 1
f2′ (x) = x 2
−1
+ − + x− 2 − 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
    
3 2 3 σ 3 2 13 − σ 1
+ σ + σ + 1 x2 + σ − 3σ + x 2 2 ψ (1) (x)
+
4 2 4 4
    
3 σ
+1 3 9 − σ 3
+ σ + 3 x2 + − σ + x 2 2 ψ (2) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ 
+2 − σ2 + 25
+ x 2 +x ψ (3) (x),

(  3 )
 σ 3 σ σ 1 σ 1
f3 (x) = x + − +
2 x− 2 + 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
    
3 2 3 σ
+1 3 2 13 − σ 3
+ σ + σ + 1 x2 + σ − 3σ + x 2 2 ψ (1) (x)
+
4 2 4 4
    
3 σ
+2 3 9 − σ 5
+ σ + 3 x2 + − σ + x 2 2 ψ (2) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ σ 7

+ x 2 +3 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (3) (x),

(  4 )
 σ 4 σ σ 1 σ 1
f3′ (x) = x 2
−1
+ − + x− 2 − 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
 
1 3 3 2 σ
+ σ + σ + 2σ + 1 x 2
2 2
  
1 3 2 13 − σ2 + 12
+ − σ + 3σ − σ + 5 x ψ (1) (x)
2 2
    
3 2 σ
+1 3 2 29 − σ 3
+ σ + 6σ + 7 x 2 + σ − 9σ + x 2 2 ψ (2) (x)
+
2 2 2
n σ
o
+2 − σ2 + 52
+ (2σ + 6)x 2 + (−2σ + 8)x ψ (3) (x)
 σ σ 7

+ x 2 +3 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (4) (x),
6 YUKITAKA ABE

(  4 )
 σ 4 σ σ 1 − σ2 + 21
f4 (x) = x + − +
2 x ψ(x)
2 2 2
 
1 3 3 2 σ
+ σ + σ + 2σ + 1 x 2 +1
2 2
  
1 3 2 13 − σ2 + 32
+ − σ + 3σ − σ + 5 x ψ (1) (x)
2 2
    
3 2 σ
+2 3 2 29 − σ2 + 52
+ σ + 6σ + 7 x 2 + σ − 9σ + x ψ (2) (x)
2 2 2
n σ σ 7
o
+ (2σ + 6)x 2 +3 + (−2σ + 8)x− 2 + 2 ψ (3) (x)
 σ 
+4 − σ2 + 92
+ x 2 +x ψ (4) (x),

(  5 )
 σ 5 σ σ 1 − σ2 − 21
f4′ (x) = x 2
−1
+ − + x ψ(x)
2 2 2
 
5 4 5 3 5 2 5 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + 1 x2
16 4 2 2
  
5 4 5 3 65 2 25 121 − σ2 + 12
+ σ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
16 2 8 2 16
 
5 3 15 2 35 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 15 x 2 +1
4 2 2
  
5 3 45 2 145 165 − σ2 + 32
+ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
4 4 4 4
 
5 2 σ
+ σ + 15σ + 25 x 2 +2
2
  
5 2 85 − σ2 + 52
+ σ − 20σ + x ψ (3) (x)
2 2
    
5 σ
+3 5 25 − σ 7
+ σ + 10 x 2 + − σ + x 2 2 ψ (4) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ σ 9

+ x 2 +4 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (5) (x),
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 7

(  5 )
 σ 5 σ σ 1 − σ2 + 12
f5 (x) = x + − +2 x ψ(x)
2 2 2
 
5 4 5 3 5 2 5 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + 1 x 2 +1
16 4 2 2
  
5 4 5 3 65 2 25 121 − σ2 + 32
+ σ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
16 2 8 2 16
 
5 3 15 2 35 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 15 x 2 +2
4 2 2
  
5 3 45 2 145 165 − σ2 + 52
+ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
4 4 4 4
 
5 2 σ
+ σ + 15σ + 25 x 2 +3
2
  
5 2 85 − σ2 + 72
+ σ − 20σ + x ψ (3) (x)
2 2
    
5 σ
+4 5 25 − σ 9
+ σ + 10 x 2 + − σ + x 2 2 ψ (4) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ σ 11

+ x 2 +5 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (5) (x),
8 YUKITAKA ABE

(  6 )
 σ 6 σ σ 1 σ 1
f5′ (x) = x 2
−1
+ − + x− 2 − 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
  
3 5 15 4 5 3 15 2 σ 3
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + 3σ + 1 x 2 + − σ 5
16 16 2 4 16
 
15 4 65 3 75 2 363 91 σ 1
+ σ − σ + σ − σ+ x− 2 + 2 ψ (1) (x)
8 8 4 16 8
 
15 4 15 3 105 2 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 45σ + 31 x 2 +1
16 2 4
  
15 4 45 3 435 2 495 1771 − σ2 + 32
+ σ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
16 4 8 4 16
 
5 3 45 2 σ
+ σ + σ + 75σ + 90 x 2 +2
2 2
  
5 3 2 255 − σ2 + 52
+ − σ + 30σ − σ + 190 x ψ (3) (x)
2 2
 
15 2 σ
+ σ + 30σ + 65 x 2 +3
4
  
15 2 75 395 − σ2 + 72
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
4 2 4
n σ
o
+4 − σ2 + 92
+ (3σ + 15)x 2 + (−3σ + 18)x ψ (5) (x)
 σ σ 11

+ x 2 +5 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (6) (x),
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 9

(  6 )
 σ 6 σ σ 1 − σ2 + 21
f6 (x) = x + − +
2 x ψ(x)
2 2 2
  
3 5 15 4 5 3 15 2 σ 3
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + 3σ + 1 x 2 + − σ 5 +1
16 16 2 4 16
 
15 65 75 363 91 σ 3
+ σ4 − σ3 + σ2 − σ+ x− 2 + 2 ψ (1) (x)
8 8 4 16 8
 
15 4 15 3 105 2 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 45σ + 31 x 2 +2
16 2 4
  
15 4 45 3 435 2 495 1771 − σ2 + 52
+ σ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
16 4 8 4 16
 
5 3 45 2 σ
+ σ + σ + 75σ + 90 x 2 +3
2 2
  
5 3 2 255 − σ2 + 72
+ − σ + 30σ − σ + 190 x ψ (3) (x)
2 2
 
15 2 σ
+ σ + 30σ + 65 x 2 +4
4
  
15 2 75 395 − σ2 + 92
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
4 2 4
n σ
o
+5 − σ2 + 11
+ (3σ + 15)x 2 + (−3σ + 18)x 2 ψ (5) (x)
 σ σ 13

+ x 2 +6 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (6) (x),
10 YUKITAKA ABE

(  7 )
 σ 7 σ σ 1 − σ2 − 12
f6′ (x) = x 2
−1
+ − + x ψ(x)
2 2 2

7 6 21 5 35 4 35 3 21 2
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ
64 32 16 8 4
 
7 σ 7 6 21 5 455 4 175 3
+ σ + 1 x2 + σ − σ + σ − σ
2 64 16 64 8
 
2541 2 637 1093 − σ2 + 12
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
64 16 64

21 5 105 4 245 3 315 2 217
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ
32 16 8 4 2

σ 21 315 4 1015 3 3465 2
+ 63) x 2 + − σ 5 +
+1
σ − σ + σ
32 32 16 16
 
12397 9219 − σ2 + 23
− σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
32 32
  
35 4 105 3 525 2 σ
+2 35 4
+ σ + σ + σ + 315σ + 301 x 2 + σ
16 4 4 16
 
3 1785 2 12411 − σ2 + 52
−35σ + σ − 665σ + x ψ (3) (x)
8 16
 
35 3 105 2 455 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 350 x 2 +3
8 2 2
  
35 3 525 2 2765 5075 − σ2 + 72
+ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
8 8 8 8
 
21 2 105 σ
+ σ + σ + 140 x 2 +4
4 2
  
21 2 791 − σ2 + 92
+ σ − 63σ + x ψ (5) (x)
4 4
    
7 σ
+5 7 49 − σ 11
+ σ + 21 x 2 + − σ + x 2 2 ψ (6) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ σ 13

+ x 2 +6 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (7) (x),
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 11

(  7 )
 σ 7 σ σ 1 σ 1
f7 (x) = x + − +
2 x− 2 + 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2

7 6 21 5 35 4 35 3 21 2
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ
64 32 16 8 4
 
7 σ 7 6 21 5 455 4 175 3
+ σ + 1 x 2 +1 + σ − σ + σ − σ
2 64 16 64 8
 
2541 2 637 1093 − σ2 + 32
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
64 16 64

21 5 105 4 245 3 315 2 217
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ
32 16 8 4 2

σ 21 315 4 1015 3 3465 2
+ 63) x 2 + − σ 5 +
+2
σ − σ + σ
32 32 16 16
 
12397 9219 − σ2 + 25
− σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
32 32
  
35 4 105 3 525 2 σ
+3 35 4
+ σ + σ + σ + 315σ + 301 x 2 + σ
16 4 4 16
 
3 1785 2 12411 − σ2 + 72
−35σ + σ − 665σ + x ψ (3) (x)
8 16
 
35 3 105 2 455 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 350 x 2 +4
8 2 2
  
35 3 525 2 2765 5075 − σ2 + 92
+ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
8 8 8 8
 
21 2 105 σ
+ σ + σ + 140 x 2 +5
4 2
  
21 2 791 − σ2 + 11
+ σ − 63σ + x 2 ψ (5) (x)
4 4
    
7 σ
+6 7 49 − σ 13
+ σ + 21 x 2 + − σ + x 2 2 ψ (6) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ σ 15

+ x 2 +7 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (7) (x),
12 YUKITAKA ABE

(  8 )
 σ 8 σ σ 1 − σ2 − 12
f7′ (x) = x 2
−1
+ − + x ψ(x)
2 2 2
 
1 7 7 6 7 5 35 4 3 2 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + 7σ + 7σ + 4σ + 1 x 2
16 16 4 8

1 7 91 175 4 847 3
+ − σ7 + σ6 − σ5 + σ − σ
16 8 16 8 16
 
637 2 1093 205 − σ2 + 12
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
8 16 8

7 6 21 5 245 4
+ σ + σ + σ + 105σ 3 + 217σ 2 + 252σ
16 4 8

σ
+1 7 6 63 5 1015 4 1155 3
+127) x 2 + σ − σ + σ − σ
16 8 16 4
 
12397 2 9219 11797 − σ2 + 23
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
16 8 16
 
7 5 105 4 σ
+ σ + σ + 175σ + 630σ + 1204σ + 966 x 2 +2
3 2
4 4

7 595 3 12411
+ − σ 5 + 35σ 4 − σ + 1330σ 2 − σ
4 2 4
σ 5
o
+3003) x− 2 + 2 ψ (3) (x)
  
35 4 3 2 σ
+3 35 4
+ σ + 70σ + 455σ + 1400σ + 1701 x 2 + σ
8 8
 
175 3 2765 2 5075 29043 − σ2 + 27
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
2 4 2 8

σ
+ 7σ 3 + 105σ 2 + 560σ + 1050 x 2 +4


3 2

− σ + 9 o (5)
+ −7σ + 126σ − 791σ + 1722 x 2 2 ψ (x)

σ
+ 7σ 2 + 84σ + 266 x 2 +5


σ 11 o
+ 7σ 2 − 98σ + 357 x− 2 + 2 ψ (6) (x)
n σ
o
+6 − σ2 + 13
+ (4σ + 28) x 2 + (−4σ + 32) x 2 ψ (7) (x)
 σ σ 15

+ x 2 +7 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (8) (x),
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 13

(  8 )
 σ 8 σ σ 1 − σ2 + 21
f8 (x) = x + − +
2 x ψ(x)
2 2 2
 
1 7 7 6 7 5 35 4 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + 7σ + 7σ + 4σ + 1 x 2 +1 3 2
16 16 4 8

1 7 91 175 4 847 3
+ − σ7 + σ6 − σ5 + σ − σ
16 8 16 8 16
 
637 2 1093 205 − σ2 + 32
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
8 16 8

7 6 21 5 245 4
+ σ + σ + σ + 105σ 3 + 217σ 2 + 252σ
16 4 8

σ
+2 7 6 63 5 1015 4 1155 3
+127) x 2 + σ − σ + σ − σ
16 8 16 4
 
12397 2 9219 11797 − σ2 + 52
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
16 8 16
 
7 5 105 4 σ
+ σ + σ + 175σ + 630σ + 1204σ + 966 x 2 +3
3 2
4 4

7 595 3 12411
+ − σ 5 + 35σ 4 − σ + 1330σ 2 − σ
4 2 4
σ 7
o
+3003) x− 2 + 2 ψ (3) (x)
  
35 4 3 2 σ
+4 35 4
+ σ + 70σ + 455σ + 1400σ + 1701 x 2 + σ
8 8
 
175 3 2765 2 5075 29043 − σ2 + 92
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
2 4 2 8

σ
+ 7σ 3 + 105σ 2 + 560σ + 1050 x 2 +5


3 2

− σ + 11 o (5)
+ −7σ + 126σ − 791σ + 1722 x 2 2 ψ (x)

σ
+ 7σ 2 + 84σ + 266 x 2 +6


σ 13 o
+ 7σ 2 − 98σ + 357 x− 2 + 2 ψ (6) (x)
n σ
o
+7 − σ2 + 15
+ (4σ + 28) x 2 + (−4σ + 32) x 2 ψ (7) (x)
 σ σ 17

+ x 2 +8 + x− 2 + 2 ψ (8) (x),
14 YUKITAKA ABE

(  9 )
 σ 9 σ σ 1 − σ2 − 21
f8′ (x) = x 2
−1
+ − + x ψ(x)
2 2 2

9 8 9 21 63 63 21
+ σ + σ 7 + σ 6 + σ 5 + σ 4 + σ 3 + 9σ 2
256 32 16 16 8 2
 
9 σ 9 8 9 273 6 315 5 7623 4
+ σ + 1 x2 + σ − σ7 + σ − σ + σ
2 256 16 64 16 128
 
1911 3 9837 2 1845 9841 − σ2 + 12
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
16 64 16 256

9 7 63 6 441 5 945 4 651 3
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ + 567σ 2
32 16 16 8 2
 
1143 σ 9 189 6 1827 5
+ +1
σ + 255 x 2 + − σ 7 + σ − σ
2 32 32 32
10395 4 37191 3 82971 2 106173
+ σ − σ + σ − σ
32  32 32 32
59805 σ 3
+ x− 2 + 2 ψ (2) (x)
32

21 6 189 5 1575 4
+ σ + σ + σ + 945σ 3 + 2709σ 2 + 4347σ
16 8 8

σ
+2 21 6 63 5 5355 4 111699 2
+3025) x 2 + σ − σ + σ − 1995σ 3 + σ
16 2 16 16
 
27027 179965 − σ2 + 25
− σ+ x ψ (3) (x)
2 16
 
63 5 315 4 3 2 15309 σ
+ σ + σ + 420σ + 3150σ + σ + 7770 x 2 +3
16 4 2

63 1575 4 8295 3 45675 2 261387
+ − σ5 + σ − σ + σ − σ
16 16 8 8 16
 
309435 − σ2 + 72
+ x ψ (4) (x)
16
 
63 4 315 3 σ
+ σ + σ + 1260σ + 4725σ + 6951 x 2 +4
2
8 2

63 4 7119 2
+ σ − 189σ 3 + σ − 7749σ
8 4
 
104811 − σ2 + 92
+ x ψ (5) (x)
8
A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 15

 
21 3 σ
+ 2
σ + 189σ + 1197σ + 2645 x 2 +5
2
  
21 3 441 2 3213 8085 − σ2 + 11
+ − σ + σ − σ+ x 2 ψ (6) (x)
2 2 2 2
n σ
σ 13 o
+ 9σ 2 + 126σ + 462 x 2 +6 + 9σ 2 − 144σ + 597 x− 2 + 2 ψ (7) (x)


    
9 σ
+7 9 81 − σ 15
+ σ + 36 x 2 + − σ + x 2 2 ψ (8) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ 
+8 − σ2 + 17
+ x 2 +x 2 ψ (9) (x),

   
σ σ −1 σ 1 σ 1
g0′ (x) = x2 − − + − −
x 2 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
 σ σ 1

+ x 2 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (1) (x),

   
σ σ σ 1 − σ2 + 12
g1 (x) = x − − +
2 x ψ(x)
2 2 2
 σ σ 3

+ x 2 +1 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (1) (x),

(  2 )
 σ 2 σ σ 1 − σ2 − 12
g1′ (x) = x 2
−1
− − + x ψ(x)
2 2 2
n σ
o
− σ2 + 12
+ (σ + 1)x − (−σ + 2)x
2 ψ (1) (x)
 σ σ 3

+ x 2 +1 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (2) (x),

(  2 )
 σ 2 σ σ 1 − σ2 + 12
g2 (x) = x − − +
2 x ψ(x)
2 2 2
n σ
o
+1 − σ2 + 32
+ (σ + 1)x − (−σ + 2)x
2 ψ (1) (x)
 σ σ 5

+ x 2 +2 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (2) (x),
16 YUKITAKA ABE

(  3 )
 σ 3 σ σ 1 σ 1
g2′ (x) = x −1
− − +
2 x− 2 − 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
    
3 2 3 σ 3 2 13 − σ 1
+ σ + σ + 1 x2 − σ − 3σ + x 2 2 ψ (1) (x)
+
4 2 4 4
    
3 σ
+1 3 9 − σ 3
+ σ + 3 x2 − − σ + x 2 2 ψ (2) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ 
+2 − σ2 + 52
+ x 2 −x ψ (3) (x),

(  3 )
 σ 3 σ σ 1 σ 1
g3 (x) = x − − + 2 x− 2 + 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
    
3 2 3 σ
+1 3 2 13 − σ 3
+ σ + σ + 1 x2 − σ − 3σ + x 2 2 ψ (1) (x)
+
4 2 4 4
    
3 σ
+2 3 9 − σ 5
+ σ + 3 x2 − − σ + x 2 2 ψ (2) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ σ 7

+ x 2 +3 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (3) (x),

(  4 )
 σ 4 σ σ 1 − σ2 − 12
g3′ (x) = x 2
−1
− − + x ψ(x)
2 2 2
 
1 3 3 2 σ
+ σ + σ + 2σ + 1 x 2
2 2
  
1 3 2 13 − σ2 + 12
− − σ + 3σ − σ + 5 x ψ (1) (x)
2 2
    
3 2 σ
+1 3 2 29 − σ 3
+ σ + 6σ + 7 x 2 − σ − 9σ + x 2 2 ψ (2) (x)
+
2 2 2
n σ
o
+2 − σ2 + 52
+ (2σ + 6)x 2 − (−2σ + 8)x ψ (3) (x)
 σ σ 7

+ x 2 +3 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (4) (x),
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 17

(  4 )
 σ 4 σ σ 1 σ 1
g4 (x) = x − − +2 x− 2 + 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
 
1 3 3 2 σ
+ σ + σ + 2σ + 1 x 2 +1
2 2
  
1 3 2 13 − σ2 + 32
− − σ + 3σ − σ + 5 x ψ (1) (x)
2 2
    
3 2 σ
+2 3 2 29 − σ2 + 52
+ σ + 6σ + 7 x 2 − σ − 9σ + x ψ (2) (x)
2 2 2
n σ σ 7
o
+ (2σ + 6)x 2 +3 − (−2σ + 8)x− 2 + 2 ψ (3) (x)
 σ 
+4 − σ2 + 92
+ x 2 −x ψ (4) (x),

(  5 )
 σ 5 σ σ 1 − σ2 − 21
g4′ (x) = x 2
−1
− − + x ψ(x)
2 2 2
 
5 4 5 3 5 2 5 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + 1 x2
16 4 2 2
  
5 4 5 3 65 2 25 121 − σ2 + 12
− σ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
16 2 8 2 16
 
5 3 15 2 35 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 15 x 2 +1
4 2 2
  
5 3 45 2 145 165 − σ2 + 32
− − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
4 4 4 4
 
5 2 σ
+ σ + 15σ + 25 x 2 +2
2
  
5 2 85 − σ2 + 52
− σ − 20σ + x ψ (3) (x)
2 2
    
5 σ
+3 5 25 − σ 7
+ σ + 10 x 2 − − σ + x 2 2 ψ (4) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ σ 9

+ x 2 +4 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (5) (x),
18 YUKITAKA ABE

(  5 )
 σ 5 σ σ 1 − σ2 + 12
g5 (x) = x − − +
2 x ψ(x)
2 2 2
 
5 4 5 3 5 2 5 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + 1 x 2 +1
16 4 2 2
  
5 4 5 3 65 2 25 121 − σ2 + 32
− σ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
16 2 8 2 16
 
5 3 15 2 35 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 15 x 2 +2
4 2 2
  
5 3 45 2 145 165 − σ2 + 52
− − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
4 4 4 4
 
5 2 σ
+ σ + 15σ + 25 x 2 +3
2
  
5 2 85 − σ2 + 72
− σ − 20σ + x ψ (3) (x)
2 2
    
5 σ
+4 5 25 − σ 9
+ σ + 10 x 2 − − σ + x 2 2 ψ (4) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ σ 11

+ x 2 +5 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (5) (x),
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 19

(  6 )
 σ 6 σ σ 1 − σ2 − 12
g5′ (x) = x 2
−1
− − + x ψ(x)
2 2 2
  
3 5 15 4 5 3 15 2 σ 3
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + 3σ + 1 x 2 − − σ 5
16 16 2 4 16
 
15 65 75 363 91 σ 1
+ σ4 − σ3 + σ2 − σ+ x− 2 + 2 ψ (1) (x)
8 8 4 16 8
 
15 4 15 3 105 2 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 45σ + 31 x 2 +1
16 2 4
  
15 4 45 3 435 2 495 1771 − σ2 + 32
− σ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
16 4 8 4 16
 
5 3 45 2 σ
+ σ + σ + 75σ + 90 x 2 +2
2 2
  
5 3 2 255 − σ2 + 25
− − σ + 30σ − σ + 190 x ψ (3) (x)
2 2
 
15 2 σ
+ σ + 30σ + 65 x 2 +3
4
  
15 2 75 395 − σ2 + 72
− σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
4 2 4
n σ
o
+4 − σ2 + 92
+ (3σ + 15)x 2 − (−3σ + 18)x ψ (5) (x)
 σ σ 11

+ x 2 +5 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (6) (x),
20 YUKITAKA ABE

(  6 )
 σ 6 σ σ 1 σ 1
g6 (x) = x − − +
2 x− 2 + 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2
  
3 5 15 4 5 3 15 2 σ 3
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + 3σ + 1 x 2 − − σ 5 +1
16 16 2 4 16
 
15 65 75 363 91 σ 3
+ σ4 − σ3 + σ2 − σ+ x− 2 + 2 ψ (1) (x)
8 8 4 16 8
 
15 4 15 3 105 2 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 45σ + 31 x 2 +2
16 2 4
  
15 4 45 3 435 2 495 1771 − σ2 + 52
− σ − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
16 4 8 4 16
 
5 3 45 2 σ
+ σ + σ + 75σ + 90 x 2 +3
2 2
  
5 3 2 255 − σ2 + 27
− − σ + 30σ − σ + 190 x ψ (3) (x)
2 2
 
15 2 σ
+ σ + 30σ + 65 x 2 +4
4
  
15 2 75 395 − σ2 + 92
− σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
4 2 4
n σ
o
+5 − σ2 + 11
+ (3σ + 15)x 2 − (−3σ + 18)x 2 ψ (5) (x)
 σ σ 13

+ x 2 +6 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (6) (x),
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 21

(  7 )
 σ 7 σ σ 1 σ 1
g6′ (x) = x 2
−1
− − + x− 2 − 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2

7 6 21 5 35 4 35 3 21 2 7
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ + σ
64 32 16 8 4 2

σ 7 6 21 5 455 4 175 3
+1) x 2 − σ − σ + σ − σ
64 16 64 8
 
2541 2 637 1093 − σ2 + 12
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
64 16 64

21 5 105 4 245 3 315 2 217
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ
32 16 8 4 2

σ 21 315 4 1015 3 3465 2
+63) x 2 − − σ 5 +
+1
σ − σ + σ
32 32 16 16
 
12397 9219 − σ2 + 32
− σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
32 32
  
35 4 105 3 525 2 σ
+2 35 4
+ σ + σ + σ + 315σ + 301 x 2 − σ
16 4 4 16
 
3 1785 2 12411 − σ2 + 52
−35σ + σ − 665σ + x ψ (3) (x)
8 16
 
35 3 105 2 455 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 350 x 2 +3
8 2 2
  
35 3 525 2 2765 5075 − σ2 + 72
− − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
8 8 8 8
 
21 2 105 σ
+ σ + σ + 140 x 2 +4
4 2
  
21 2 791 − σ2 + 92
− σ − 63σ + x ψ (5) (x)
4 4
    
7 σ
+5 7 49 − σ 11
+ σ + 21 x 2 − − σ + x 2 2 ψ (6) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ σ 13

+ x 2 +6 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (7) (x),
22 YUKITAKA ABE

(  7 )
 σ 7 σ σ 1 σ 1
g7 (x) = x − − +
2 x− 2 + 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2

7 6 21 5 35 4 35 3 21 2 7
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ + σ
64 32 16 8 4 2

σ 7 6 21 5 455 4 175 3
+1) x 2 +1 − σ − σ + σ − σ
64 16 64 8
 
2541 2 637 1093 − σ2 + 32
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
64 16 64

21 5 105 4 245 3 315 2 217
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ
32 16 8 4 2

σ 21 315 4 1015 3 3465 2
+63) x 2 − − σ 5 +
+2
σ − σ + σ
32 32 16 16
 
12397 9219 − σ2 + 52
− σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
32 32
  
35 4 105 3 525 2 σ
+3 35 4
+ σ + σ + σ + 315σ + 301 x 2 − σ
16 4 4 16
 
3 1785 2 12411 − σ2 + 72
−35σ + σ − 665σ + x ψ (3) (x)
8 16
 
35 3 105 2 455 σ
+ σ + σ + σ + 350 x 2 +4
8 2 2
  
35 3 525 2 2765 5075 − σ2 + 92
− − σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
8 8 8 8
 
21 2 105 σ
+ σ + σ + 140 x 2 +5
4 2
  
21 2 791 − σ2 + 11
− σ − 63σ + x 2 ψ (5) (x)
4 4
    
7 σ
+6 7 49 − σ 13
+ σ + 21 x 2 − − σ + x 2 2 ψ (6) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ σ 15

+ x 2 +7 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (7) (x),
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 23

(  8 )
 σ 8 σ σ 1 − σ2 − 21
g7′ (x) = x 2
−1
− − + x ψ(x)
2 2 2

1 7 7 7 35
σ + σ 6 + σ 5 + σ 4 + 7σ 3 + 7σ 2 + 4σ
16 16 4 8

σ 1 7 91 175 4
+1) x 2 − − σ 7 + σ 6 − σ 5 + σ
16 8 16 8
 
847 3 637 2 1093 205 − σ2 + 12
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
16 8 16 8

7 6 21 5 245 4
+ σ + σ + σ + 105σ 3 + 217σ 2 + 252σ
16 4 8

σ
+1 7 6 63 5 1015 4 1155 3
+127) x 2 − σ − σ + σ − σ
16 8 16 4
 
12397 2 9219 11797 − σ2 + 32
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
16 8 16

7 5 105 4
+ σ + σ + 175σ 3 + 630σ 2 + 1204σ
4 4

σ 7 595 3
+966) x 2 − − σ 5 + 35σ 4 −
+2
σ + 1330σ 2
4 2
 
12411 − σ2 + 52
− σ + 3003 x ψ (3) (x)
4
  
35 4 3 2 σ
+3 35 4
+ σ + 70σ + 455σ + 1400σ + 1701 x 2 − σ
8 8
 
175 3 2765 2 5075 29043 − σ2 + 72
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
2 4 2 8
σ
+ (7σ 3 + 105σ 2 + 560σ + 1050)x 2 +4

o
3 2 − σ2 + 92
− (−7σ + 126σ − 791σ + 1722)x ψ (5) (x)
σ
+ (7σ 2 + 84σ + 266)x 2 +5


σ 11
o
−(7σ 2 − 98σ + 357)x− 2 + 2 ψ (6) (x)
n σ
o
+6 − σ2 + 13
+ (4σ + 28)x 2 − (−4σ + 32)x 2 ψ (7) (x)
 σ σ 15

+ x 2 +7 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (8) (x),
24 YUKITAKA ABE

(  8 )
 σ 8 σ σ 1 σ 1
g8 (x) = x − − +
2 x− 2 + 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2

1 7 7 7 35
σ + σ 6 + σ 5 + σ 4 + 7σ 3 + 7σ 2 + 4σ
16 16 4 8

σ 1 7 91 175 4
+1) x 2 +1 − − σ 7 + σ 6 − σ 5 + σ
16 8 16 8
 
847 3 637 2 1093 205 − σ2 + 32
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
16 8 16 8

7 6 21 5 245 4
+ σ + σ + σ + 105σ 3 + 217σ 2 + 252σ
16 4 8

σ
+2 7 6 63 5 1015 4 1155 3
+127) x 2 − σ − σ + σ − σ
16 8 16 4
 
12397 2 9219 11797 − σ2 + 52
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
16 8 16

7 5 105 4
+ σ + σ + 175σ 3 + 630σ 2 + 1204σ
4 4

σ 7 595 3
+966) x 2 − − σ 5 + 35σ 4 −
+3
σ + 1330σ 2
4 2
 
12411 − σ2 + 72
− σ + 3003 x ψ (3) (x)
4
  
35 4 3 2 σ
+4 35 4
+ σ + 70σ + 455σ + 1400σ + 1701 x 2 − σ
8 8
 
175 3 2765 2 5075 29043 − σ2 + 92
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
2 4 2 8
σ
+ (7σ 3 + 105σ 2 + 560σ + 1050)x 2 +5

o
3 2 − σ2 + 11
− (−7σ + 126σ − 791σ + 1722)x 2 ψ (5) (x)
σ
+ (7σ 2 + 84σ + 266)x 2 +6


σ 13
o
−(7σ 2 − 98σ + 357)x− 2 + 2 ψ (6) (x)
n σ
o
+7 − σ2 + 15
+ (4σ + 28)x 2 − (−4σ + 32)x 2 ψ (7) (x)
 σ σ 17

+ x 2 +8 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (8) (x),
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 25

(  9 )
 σ 9 σ σ 1 − σ2 − 12
g8′ (x) = x 2
−1
− − + x ψ(x)
2 2 2

9 8 9 21 63 63 21 9
σ + σ 7 + σ 6 + σ 5 + σ 4 + σ 3 + 9σ 2 + σ
256 32 16 16 8 2 2

σ 9 8 9 273 6 315 5 7623 4
+1) x 2 − σ − σ7 + σ − σ + σ
256 16 64 16 128
 
1911 3 9837 2 1845 9841 − σ2 + 12
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
16 64 16 256

9 7 63 6 441 5 945 4 651 3
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ + 567σ 2
32 16 16 8 2
 
1143 σ 9 189 6 1827 5 10395 4
+ +1
σ + 255 x 2 − − σ 7 + σ − σ + σ
2 32 32 32 32
 
37191 3 82971 2 106173 59805 − σ2 + 23
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
32 32 32 32

21 6 189 5 1575 4
+ σ + σ + σ + 945σ 3 + 2709σ 2 + 4347σ
16 8 8

σ
+2 21 6 63 5 5355 4 111699 2
+3025) x 2 − σ − σ + σ − 1995σ 3 + σ
16 2 16 16
 
27027 179965 − σ2 + 52
− σ+ x ψ (3) (x)
2 16

63 5 315 4 1365 3 15309
+ σ + σ + σ + 3150σ 2 + σ
16 4 2 2

σ
+3 63 1575 4 8295 3 45675 2
+7770) x 2 − − σ5 + σ − σ + σ
16 16 8 8
 
261387 309435 − σ2 + 72
− σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
16 16
 
63 4 315 3 σ
+ σ + σ + 1260σ + 4725σ + 6951 x 2 +4
2
8 2

63 4 7119 2
− σ − 189σ 3 + σ − 7749σ
8 4
 
104811 − σ2 + 92
+ x ψ (5) (x)
8
26 YUKITAKA ABE

 
21 3 σ
+ 2
σ + 189σ + 1197σ + 2646 x 2 +5
2
  
21 3 441 2 3213 8085 − σ2 + 11
− − σ + σ − σ+ x 2 ψ (6) (x)
2 2 2 2
σ
+ (9σ 2 + 126σ + 462)x 2 +6 − (9σ 2 − 144σ


σ 13
o
+597)x− 2 + 2 ψ (7) (x)
    
9 σ
+7 9 81 − σ 15
σ + 36 x 2 − − σ + +
x 2 2 ψ (8) (x)
2 2 2
 σ σ 17

+ x 2 +8 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (9) (x),

(  9 )
 σ 9 σ σ 1 σ 1
g9 (x) = x2 − − + x− 2 + 2 ψ(x)
2 2 2

9 8 9 21 63 63 21 9
σ + σ 7 + σ 6 + σ 5 + σ 4 + σ 3 + 9σ 2 + σ
256 32 16 16 8 2 2

σ 9 8 9 273 6 315 5 7623 4
+1) x 2 +1 − σ − σ7 + σ − σ + σ
256 16 64 16 128
 
1911 3 9837 2 1845 9841 − σ2 + 32
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (1) (x)
16 64 16 256

9 7 63 6 441 5 945 4 651 3
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ + 567σ 2
32 16 16 8 2
 
1143 σ 9 189 6 1827 5 10395 4
+ σ + 255 x 2 +2 − − σ 7 + σ − σ + σ
2 32 32 32 32
 
37191 3 82971 2 106173 59805 − σ2 + 25
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (2) (x)
32 32 32 32

21 6 189 5 1575 4
+ σ + σ + σ + 945σ 3 + 2709σ 2 + 4347σ
16 8 8

σ 21 6 63 5 5355 4 111699 2
+3025) x 2 +3 − σ − σ + σ − 1995σ 3 + σ
16 2 16 16
 
27027 179965 − σ2 + 72
− σ+ x ψ (3) (x)
2 16
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 27


63 5 315 4 1365 3 15309
+ σ + σ + σ + 3150σ 2 + σ
16 4 2 2

σ 63 1575 4 8295 3 45675 2
+7770) x 2 − − σ 5 +
+4
σ − σ + σ
16 16 8 8
 
261387 309435 − σ2 + 92
− σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
16 16
 
63 4 315 3 σ
+ σ + 2
σ + 1260σ + 4725σ + 6951 x 2 +5
8 2

63 4 7119 2
− σ − 189σ 3 + σ − 7749σ
8 4
 
104811 − σ2 + 11
+ x 2 ψ (5) (x)
8
 
21 3 σ
+ σ + 189σ + 1197σ + 2646 x 2 +6
2
2
  
21 3 441 2 3213 8085 − σ2 + 13
− − σ + σ − σ+ x 2 ψ (6) (x)
2 2 2 2
σ
+ (9σ 2 + 126σ + 462)x 2 +7 − (9σ 2 − 144σ

o
− σ2 + 15
+597)x 2 ψ (7) (x)
    
9 σ
+8 9 81 − σ 17
σ + 36 x 2 − − σ + x 2 2 ψ (8) (x)
+
2 2 2
 σ 
+9 − σ2 + 19
+ x 2 −x 2 ψ (9) (x)

and
(  10 )
 σ 10 σ σ 1 − σ2 − 12
g9′ (x) = x 2
−1
− − + x ψ(x)
2 2 2

5 9 45 8 15 7 105 6 63 5 105 4
σ + σ + σ + σ + σ + σ + 15σ 3
256 256 16 32 8 8
 
45 2 σ 5 9 45 8 195 7 525 6
+ σ + 5σ + 1 x 2 − − σ + σ − σ + σ
4 256 128 64 32
7623 5 9555 4 16395 3 9225 2 49205
− σ + σ − σ + σ − σ
128  64 64 32 256
7381 σ 1
+ x− 2 + 2 ψ (1) (x)
128
28 YUKITAKA ABE


45 8 45 7 735 6 945 5 3255 4
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + σ + 945σ 3
256 16 32 8 8
 
5715 2 σ
+1 45 8 135 7 3045 6
+ σ + 1275σ + 511 x 2 − σ − σ + σ
4 256 32 64
10395 5 185955 4 138285 3 530865 2 299025
− σ + σ − σ + σ − σ
32  128  32 64 32
1205941 σ 3
+ x− 2 + 2 ψ (2) (x)
256

15 7 315 6 1575 5 4725 4 21735 2
+ σ + σ + σ + σ + 4515σ 3 + σ
16 16 8 4 2

σ 15 105 6 5355 5 9975 4
+15125σ + 9330) x 2 − − σ 7 ++2
σ − σ + σ
16 4 16 4
 
186165 3 135135 2 899825 164945 − σ2 + 52
− σ + σ − σ+ x ψ (3) (x)
16 4 16 4

105 6 315 5 6825 4 76545 2
+ σ + σ + σ + 5250σ 3 + σ + 38850σ
32 4 8 4

σ
+3 105 6 1575 5 41475 4 76125 3
+34105) x 2 − σ − σ + σ − σ
32 16 32 8
 
1306935 2 1547175 3144845 − σ2 + 27
+ σ − σ+ x ψ (4) (x)
32 16 32

63 5 1575 4 23625 2
+ σ + σ + 2100σ 3 + σ + 34755σ
8 8 2

σ 63 945 4 11865 3 38745 2
+42525) x 2 − − σ 5 +
+4
σ − σ + σ
8 4 4 2
 
524055 365589 − σ2 + 92
− σ+ x ψ (5) (x)
8 4
 
105 4 3 5985 2 σ
+ σ + 315σ + σ + 13230σ + 22827 x 2 +5
8 2

105 4 735 3 16065 2 40425
− σ − σ + σ − σ
8 2 4 2
 
315021 − σ2 + 11
+ x 2 ψ (6) (x)
8
σ
+ (15σ 3 + 315σ 2 + 2310σ + 5880)x 2 +6 − (−15σ 3 + 360σ 2


σ 13
o
−2985σ + 8520)x− 2 + 2 ψ (7) (x)
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 29

  
45 2 σ
+7 45 2 405
+ σ + 180σ + 750 x 2 − σ − σ
4 4 2
 
3765 − σ2 + 15
+ x 2 ψ (8) (x)
4
n σ σ 17
o
+ (5σ + 45) x 2 +8 − (−5σ + 50) x− 2 + 2 ψ (9) (x)
 σ 
+9 − σ2 + 19
+ x 2 −x 2 ψ (10) (x).

5. Formulas of ψ (k) (x)

An important property of the series ψ(x) = ∞ −πn2 x
P
n=1 e is the re-
ciprocal formula
   
− 21 1
(5.1) 2ψ(x) + 1 = x 2ψ +1
x
for x > 0 (for example, see (2.6.3) in [8]). The integral representation
(2.1) of ξ(s) is derived from the above reciprocal formula.
It is rewritten as
 
− 12 1 1 1 1
(5.2) ψ(x) = x ψ + x− 2 − .
x 2 2
Differentiating (5.2) one after another, we obtain the following equali-
ties
   
1 3 1 − 25 (1) 1 1 3
(5.3) ψ (x) = − x− 2 ψ
(1)
−x ψ − x− 2 ,
2 x x 4
   
3 5 1 − 72 (1) 1
ψ (x) = x− 2 ψ
(2)
+ 3x ψ
4 x x
(5.4)  
9 1 3 5
+ x− 2 ψ (2) + x− 2 ,
x 8
   
(3) 15 − 7 1 45 − 9 (1) 1
ψ (x) = − x 2 ψ − x 2ψ
8 x 4 x
   
15 11 1 13 1
(5.5) − x− 2 ψ (2) − x− 2 ψ (3)
2 x x
15 7
− x− 2 ,
16
30 YUKITAKA ABE

   
(4) 105 − 9 1 105 − 11 (1) 1
ψ (x) = x 2ψ + x 2ψ
16 x 2 x
   
105 − 13 (2) 1 − 15
(3) 1
(5.6) + x 2ψ + 14x 2 ψ
2 x x
 
17 1 105 − 9
+ x− 2 ψ (4) + x 2,
x 32
   
(5) 945 − 11 1 4725 − 13 (1) 1
ψ (x) = − x ψ 2 − x ψ 2
32 x 16 x
   
1575 − 15 (2) 1 315 − 17 (3) 1
− x 2ψ − x 2ψ
4 x 2 x
(5.7)    
45 19 1 21 1
− x− 2 ψ (4) − x− 2 ψ (5)
2 x x
945 − 11
− x 2,
64
   
(6) 10395 − 13 1 31185 − 15 (1) 1
ψ (x) = x 2ψ + x 2ψ
64 x 16 x
   
51975 − 17 (2) 1 3465 − 19 (3) 1
+ x 2ψ + x 2ψ
16 x 2 x
(5.8)    
1485 − 21 (4) 1 23 1
+ x 2ψ + 33x− 2 ψ (5)
4 x x
 
25 1 10395 − 13
+ x− 2 ψ (6) + x 2,
x 128
   
(7) 135135 − 15 1 945945 − 17 (1) 1
ψ (x) = − x 2ψ − x 2ψ
128 x 64 x
   
945945 − 19 (2) 1 315315 − 21 (3) 1
− x 2ψ − x 2ψ
32 x 16 x
   
(5.9) 45045 − 23 (4) 1 3003 − 25 (5) 1
− x 2ψ − x 2ψ
8 x 4 x
   
91 27 1 29 1
− x− 2 ψ (6) − x− 2 ψ (7)
2 x x
135135 − 15
− x 2
256
and
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 31

   
(8) 2027025 − 17 1 2027025 − 19 (1) 1
ψ (x) = x ψ 2 + x ψ2
256 x 16 x
   
4729725 − 21 (2) 1 945945 − 23 (3) 1
+ x 2ψ + x 2ψ
16 x 4 x
   
675675 − 25 (4) 1 27 1
(5.10) + x 2ψ + 15015x− 2 ψ (5)
8 x x
   
29 1 31 1
+ 1365x− 2 ψ (6) + 60x− 2 ψ (7)
x x
 
33 1 2027025 − 17
+ x− 2 ψ (8) + x 2.
x 512
Next we give formulas of ψ (k) (1). Substituting x = 1 in (5.3), we
have
1 1
(5.11) ψ(1) + ψ (1) (1) = − .
4 8
Similarly, we obtain
15 (2) 15 15
(5.12) ψ (1) + ψ (3) (1) = ψ(1) +
4 32 64
by (5.5) and (5.11). We also have
45 (4) 315 945 (1) 1575 (2)
ψ (1) + ψ (5) (1) = − ψ(1) − ψ (1) − ψ (1)
4 64 16 16
105 (3) 315
− ψ (1) −
2 128
by (5.8). Using (5.11) and (5.12), we obtain
45 (4) 945 1575 (2) 945
(5.13) ψ (1) + ψ (5) (1) = − ψ(1) + ψ (1) − .
4 64 16 128
We substitute x = 1 in (5.9). Then we have
91 (6) 135135 945945 (1)
ψ (1) + ψ (7) (1) = − ψ(1) − ψ (1)
4 256 128
945945 (2) 315315 (3)
− ψ (1) − ψ (1)
64 32
45045 (4) 3003 (5)
− ψ (1) − ψ (1)
16 8
135135
− .
512
32 YUKITAKA ABE

Therefore, it follows from (5.11), (5.12) and (5.13) that

91 (6) 2297295 945945 (2)
ψ (1) + ψ (7) (1) = ψ(1) − ψ (1)
(5.14) 4 1024 64
45045 (4) 2297295
+ ψ (1) + .
32 2048
We can consider ψ (k) for negative integers k. For any k ∈ Z we set
∞
2
X
ψ (k) (x) := (−1)k π k n2k e−πn x .
n=1

d (k)
Then we have ψ(x) = ψ (0) (x) and ψ (x) = ψ (k+1) (x). By integra-
dx
tion by parts, we obtain
Z ∞
(5.15) ψ(x)dx = −ψ (−1) (1)
1
and
Z ∞
(5.16) x2 ψ(x)dx = −ψ (−1) (1) + 2ψ (−2) (1) − 2ψ (−3) (1).
1
Furthermore we have
Z ∞ 2k−1
2k−1 (2k−1)
X (2k − 1)!
(5.17) x |ψ (x)|dx = (−1)j ψ (2k−2−j) (1)
1 j=0
(2k − 1 − j)!
and
Z ∞ 2k
2k (2k)
X (2k)!
(5.18) x ψ (x)dx = (−1)j+1 ψ (2k−1−j) (1)
1 j=0
(2k − j)!
for k = 1, 2, . . . .

6. Precise representations of R(s) and I(s)

We give representations of R(s) and I(s) more precisely, determin-
ing fk (1) and gk (1) in (3.1) and (3.2) respectively. We use results in
Sections 4 and 5.
We obtain
  
σ σ 1
f1 (1) = + − + ψ(1) + 2ψ (1) (1)
2 2 2
 
1 (1)
=2 ψ(1) + ψ (1)
4
1
=−
4
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 33

by the representation of f1 (x) in Section 4 and (5.11). Then we have

 2
2 1
(6.1) − f1 (1) = 2 .
t t

It follows from the formula of f3 (x) in Section 4, (5.11) and (5.12) that
 
1 3 3 2 3 17
f3 (1) = (3σ − 3σ + 1)ψ(1) + σ − σ+ ψ (1) (1)
8 2 2 4
15
+ ψ (2) (1) + 2ψ (3) (1)
2  
1 2 1 15
= (3σ − 3σ + 1) ψ(1) + ψ (1) + ψ (1) (1)
(1)
2 4 4
 
15 (2)
+2 ψ (1) + ψ (3) (1)
4
 
1 2 15 1 (1) 15
= − 4 (3σ − 3σ + 1) + ψ(1) + ψ (1) +
2 4 4 32
1
= − 4 (3σ 2 − 3σ + 1),
2

therefore
 4
2 1
(6.2) f3 (1) = − 4 (3σ 2 − 3σ + 1).
t t

We have
 
5 4 5 3 5 2 5 1
f5 (1) = σ − σ + σ − σ+ ψ(1)
32 16 16 32 32
 
5 4 5 3 85 2 137
+ σ − σ + σ − 10σ + ψ (1) (1)
8 4 8 16
 
75 2 75 225
+ σ − σ+ ψ (2) (1)
4 4 4
 
135
+ 5σ 2 − 5σ + ψ (3) (1)
2
45
+ ψ (4) (1) + 2ψ (5) (1)
2
34 YUKITAKA ABE

by the formula of f5 (x). Using (5.13), we can rewrite it as

   
5 4 1 (1) 5 3 1 (1)
f5 (1) = σ ψ(1) + ψ (1) − σ ψ(1) + ψ (1)
8 4 4 4
 
2 5 85 (1) 75 (2) (3)
+σ ψ(1) + ψ (1) + ψ (1) + 5ψ (1)
16 8 4
 
5 (1) 75 (2) (3)
−σ ψ(1) + 10ψ (1) + ψ (1) + 5ψ (1)
32 4
59 137 (1) 2025 (2)
− ψ(1) + ψ (1) + ψ (1)
2 16 8
135 (3) 945
+ ψ (1) − .
2 64
Then we obtain
5 4 5 5 5 1
f5 (1) = − σ + σ3 − σ2 + σ −
64 32 32 64 64
by (5.11) and (5.12). Hence we have
 6
2 1
(6.3) − f5 (1) = 6 (5σ 4 − 10σ 3 + 10σ 2 − 5σ + 1).
t t

By the same way, we also obtain

 8
2 1
(6.4) f7 (1) = − 8 (7σ 6 − 21σ 5 + 35σ 4 − 35σ 3 + 21σ 2 − 7σ + 1).
t t

Therefore, it follows from (6.1), (6.2), (6.3) and (6.4) that

1 1
R(s) = 2
− 4 (3σ 2 − 3σ + 1)
t t
1
+ 6 (5σ 4 − 10σ 3 + 10σ 2 − 5σ + 1)
(6.5) t
1
− 8 (7σ 6 − 21σ 5 + 35σ 4 − 35σ 3 + 21σ 2 − 7σ + 1)
t
1
− 9 α1 (s),
t
where
Z ∞  
t
α1 (s) = 29
sin log x f8′ (x)dx.
1 2
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 35

We use the same argument as above for I(s). By results in Sections

4 and 5, we obtain
(6.6)
1 1
I(s) = 3
(2σ − 1) − 5 (2σ − 1)(2σ 2 − 2σ + 1)
t t
1
+ 7 (2σ − 1)(3σ 4 − 6σ 3 + 7σ 2 − 4σ + 1)
t
1
− 9 (2σ − 1)(4σ 6 − 12σ 5 + 22σ 4 − 24σ 3 + 16σ 2 − 6σ + 1)
t
1
− 10 β1 (s),
t
where Z ∞  
t
β1 (s) = 2 10
sin log x g9′ (x)dx.
1 2

7. Estimates
We use inequalities 3.14159265 < π < 3.14159266 and 0.04321391 <
−π
e < 0.04321392 to estimate |ψ (k) (1)|.
Since
∞ ∞
X
−n2 π
X e−π
ψ(1) = e < (e−π )n = ,
n=1 n=1
1 − e−π
we have
(7.1) ψ(1) < 0.04516571.
We also have
∞
1 X 1 −n2 π
|ψ (−1) (1)| = e
π n=1 n2
(7.2)
1
< ψ(1) < 0.01437670.
π
To estimate |ψ (1) (1)| = π ∞ 2 −n2 π
P
n=1 n e , we need a function φ1 (x) =
2 −πx2 ′ 2 −πx2
xe . Since φ1 (x) = 2x(1 − πx )e , φ1 (x) is monotonously de-
creasing on (1, ∞). Then we have
∞ Z ∞
2 −n2 π
X
−π
ne <e + φ1 (x)dx.
n=1 1

Noting Z ∞ Z ∞
−πx2 1 −π
e dx < e−πx dx = e ,
1 1 π
36 YUKITAKA ABE

we obtain
Z ∞  
1 1 −π
φ1 (x)dx < 1 + e
1 π 2π
by integration by parts. Therefore we have
1 −π
|ψ (1) (1)| < πe−π + (1 + π) e
(7.3) 2π
< 0.16424611.
2 P∞ 2
We consider a function φ2 (x) = x4 e−πx for ψ (2) (1) = π 2 n=1 n4 e−n π .
By the same way as above, we obtain
∞ Z ∞
4 −n2 π
X
−π
ne <e + φ2 (x)dx
n=1 1

2
for φ′2 (x) = 2x3 (2 − πx2 )e−πx . Since
Z ∞ Z ∞
1 −π 3
φ2 (x)dx = e + φ1 (x)dx,
1 2π 2π 1
we have
∞   
X
4 −n2 π −π 3 1 1 −π
ne <e + 1+ 1+ e .
n=1
2π π 2π

Hence we obtain
   
π 3 1
(2)
ψ (1) < π + 2
1+ 1+ e−π
(7.4) 2 2π π
< 0.53711157.

We estimate |ψ (3) (1)| = π 3 ∞ 6 −n2 π

P
n=1 n e using a function φ3 (x) =
6 −πx2 ′ 5 2 −πx2
xe . Since φ3 (x) = 2x (3 − πx )e , we obtain
∞ Z ∞
6 −n2 π
X
−π
ne <e + φ3 (x)dx.
n=1 1

We have Z ∞ Z ∞
1 −π 5
φ3 (x)dx = e + φ2 (x)dx.
1 2π 2π 1
Then we obtain
∞   
X
6 −n2 π −π 5 5·3 1 1 −π
ne <e + 1+ + 2
1+ e .
n=1
2π (2π) π 2π
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 37

Therefore, we have

π2
   
5 5·3 1
(3)
|ψ (1)| < π +3
1+ + 1+ e−π
(7.5) 2 2π (2π)2 π
< 1.82967310.

We can estimate other |ψ (k) (1)| by the same way. We do not give
their estimation furthermore, because we do not need their real values
in our argument.
We show the following lemma using the above estimates.

Lemma 1. If t > 41.232345, then we have

0 < R(s) < 0.001176398

1
for 2
≤ σ ≤ 1.

Proof. We have already shown in Sections 3 and 5 that

 3 Z ∞  
1 2 t
R(s) = 2 + sin log x f2′ (x)dx.
t t 1 2

From the precise form of f2′ (x) in Section 4, it follows that

1
|f2′ (x)| ≤ (3σ 2 − 3σ + 1)ψ(x)
23 
3 2 3 17 σ
+ σ − σ+ x 2 |ψ (1) (x)|
2 2 4
15 σ σ
+ x 2 +1 ψ (2) (x) + 2x 2 +2 |ψ (3) (x)|
2
1 17 15
≤ 3 ψ(x) + x|ψ (1) (x)| + x2 ψ (2) (x) + 2x3 |ψ (3) (x)|
2 4 2
38 YUKITAKA ABE

for 12 ≤ σ ≤ 1 and 1 ≤ x. Then we obtain

Z ∞    Z ∞ Z ∞
3
 t ′

2  sin log x f2 (x)dx ≤
 ψ(x)dx + 34 x|ψ (1) (x)|dx
1 2 1 1
Z ∞
+ 60 x2 ψ (2) (x)dx
Z1 ∞
+ 16 x3 |ψ (3) (x)|dx
1
(−1)
= −ψ (1) + 34(ψ(1) − ψ (−1) (1))
+ 60(−ψ (1) (1) + 2ψ(1) − 2ψ (−1) (1))
+ 16(ψ (2) (1) − 3ψ (1) (1) + 6ψ(1)
− 6ψ (−1) (1))
= −251ψ (−1) (1) + 250ψ(1) − 108ψ (1) (1)
+ 16ψ (2) (1)
< 41.232345
by (5.15), (5.16), (5.17), (5.18), (7.1), (7.2), (7.3) and (7.4). Therefore
we have
   
1 1 1 1
1 − 41.232345 < R(s) < 2 1 + 41.232345 .
t2 |t| t |t|
1
If t > 41.232345, then 1 − 41.232345 > 0 and
t
 
1 1 2
2
1 + 41.232345 < < 0.001176398.
t t (41.232345)2
□
We estimate α1 (s) in (6.5) by the same argument as the proof of
Lemma 1.
Lemma 2. There exists a constant M1 such that
(7.6) |α1 (s)| < M1
1
for 2
≤ σ ≤ 1 and t ∈ R.
We also have a similar result for β1 (s) in (6.6).
Lemma 3. There exists a constant L1 such that
(7.7) |β1 (s)| < (2σ − 1)L1
1
for 2
< σ ≤ 1 and t ∈ R.
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 39

Proof. We rewrite g9′ (x) in Section 4 as

9  
σ
− σ2 − 12 +j
X
′ −1+j
g9 (x) = Aj (σ)x 2 − Bj (σ)x ψ (j) (x)
(7.8) j=0
 σ σ 19

+ x 2 +9 − x− 2 + 2 ψ (10) (x).
Now we have
σ σ 1
(7.9) Aj (σ)x 2 −1+j − Bj (σ)x− 2 − 2 +j
σ
 σ σ 1

= (Aj (σ) − Bj (σ)) x 2 −1+j + Bj (σ) x 2 −1+j − x− 2 − 2 +j .
It holds that
σ σ 1
x 2 −1+j − x− 2 − 2 +j
∞  n  σ 1 n 
X 1 σ
= −1+j − − − +j (log x)n .
n=1
n! 2 2 2
We have
σ n  σ 1 n
(7.10) −1+j − − − +j
2 2 2
 n−1 
X n−1−k  σ 1 k
1 σ
= σ− −1+j − − +j .
2 k=0 2 2 2
Since σ  3  
 σ 1
 − 1 < < 1 and − −  ≤ 1
  
2 4 2 2
1
for σ with 2
< σ ≤ 1, we obtain

 σ n  σ 1 n   1

 2 − 1 − −2 − 2  ≤ σ − 2 n
 

by (7.10). Therefore, we have

 σ 
 2 −1 − σ2 − 12 
 x − x 
  ∞
1 X 1
≤ σ− (log x) (log x)n−1
2 n=1
(n − 1)!
 
1
= σ− (log x)x.
2
Noting  
σ  1  σ 1  1 1
 ≤ and − − + 1 < < ,
  
2 2 2 2 4 2
40 YUKITAKA ABE

we similarly obtain
 σ   1

− σ2 − 12 +1  1
x − x ≤ σ− (log x)x 2 .
 2
2
Furthermore, we obtain by the same way as above
 σ   1

 2 −1+j − σ2 − 21 +j  1
x −x ≤ σ− (log x)x− 2 +j
2
for j = 2, 3, . . . , 9.
Moreover, we have the following estimates for any σ with 12 < σ ≤ 1
1 
|A0 (σ) − B0 (σ)| = 10 (2σ − 1) 5σ 8 − 20σ 7 + 50σ 6 − 80σ 5 + 86σ 4 − 62σ 3
2 
+29σ 2 − 8σ + 1
1
≤ 10 (2σ − 1),
2
 
1 1
|B0 (σ)| < B0 = 20 ,
2 2
1 
|A1 (σ) − B1 (σ)| = 8 (2σ − 1) 5σ 8 − 20σ 7 + 500σ 6 − 1430σ 5 + 7916σ 4
2 
−13472σ 3 + 27974σ 2 − 21473σ + 14506
7253
≤ 7 (2σ − 1),
2
 
1 1220703
|B1 (σ)| < B1 = ,
2 217
1 
|A2 (σ) − B2 (σ)| = 8 (2σ − 1) 900σ 6 − 2700σ 5 + 55350σ 4 − 106200σ 3
2 
+621000σ 2 − 568350σ + 1075125
1075125
≤ (2σ − 1),
28
 
1 108497821
|B2 (σ)| < B2 = ,
2 216
1 
|A3 (σ) − B3 (σ)| = 4 (2σ − 1) 15σ 6 − 45σ 5 + 4230σ 4 − 8385σ 3
2 
+125010σ 2 − 120825σ + 510500
127625
≤ (2σ − 1),
22
 
1 41480285
|B3 (σ)| < B3 = ,
2 211
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 41

1 
2835σ 4 − 5670σ 3 + 233415σ 2
|A4 (σ) − B4 (σ)| = 5
(2σ − 1)
2
−230580σ + 2053485|
2053485
≤ (2σ − 1),
25
 
1 120885545
|B4 (σ)| < B4 = ,
2 211

1 
63σ 4 − 126σ 3 + 20202σ 2 − 20139σ
|A5 (σ) − B5 (σ)| = (2σ − 1)
23
+390978|
195489
≤ (2σ − 1),
22
 
1 16161453
|B5 (σ)| < B5 = ,
2 28

1  
2730σ 2 − 2730σ + 132405
|A6 (σ) − B6 (σ)| = (2σ − 1)
23
132405
≤ (2σ − 1),
23
 
1 3869481
|B6 (σ)| < B6 = ,
2 27

 
|A7 (σ) − B7 (σ)| = (2σ − 1) 15σ 2 − 15σ + 2640
≤ 2640(2σ − 1),

 
1 56925
|B7 (σ)| < B7 = ,
2 23

 
765 1 13485
|A8 (σ) − B8 (σ)| = (2σ − 1), |B8 (σ)| < B8 = ,
4 2 24

 
1 95
|A9 (σ) − B9 (σ)| = 5(2σ − 1) and |B9 (σ)| < B9 = .
2 2
42 YUKITAKA ABE
σ 1 σ
We have x 2 ≤ x, (log x)x 2 ≤ x, x 2 −1 ≤ 1 and (log x)x ≤ x2 for x with
1 ≤ x. Then, it follows from (7.8) and the above inequalities that
|g9′ (x)|
 
1 1 2 7253 1220703
< 10 ψ(x) + 21 x ψ(x) + 7
+ 18
x|ψ (1) (x)|
2σ − 1 2 2 2 2
 
1075125 108497821
+ + x2 ψ (2) (x)
28 217
 
127625 41480285
+ + x3 |ψ (3) (x)|
22 212
 
2053485 120885545
+ 5
+ 12
x4 ψ (4) (x)
2 2
 
195489 16161453
+ + x5 |ψ (5) (x)|
22 29
 
132405 3869481
+ + x6 ψ (6) (x)
23 28
 
56925
+ 2640 + x7 |ψ (7) (x)|
24
 
765 13485
+ 2
+ 5
x8 ψ (8) (x)
2 2
 
95 1
+ 5 + 2 x9 |ψ (9) (x)| + x10 ψ (10) (x).
2 2
Integrating it, we obtain the conclusion by the results in Section 5 and
the estimates of |ψ (k) (1)|. □

8. New zero-free region

In Section 2 we showed that ξ(s) = 0 if and only if (2.3) holds. The
first equality of (2.3) is equivalent to
R(s)t4 + (2σ 2 − 2σ + 1)R(s) − 1 t2 + σ 2 (σ − 1)2 R(s) + σ(σ − 1) = 0.


If we set T = t2 , then it is
(8.1) R(s)T 2 + B(s)T + C(s) = 0,
where we set
(
B(s) = (2σ 2 − 2σ + 1)R(s) − 1,
C(s) = σ 2 (σ − 1)2 R(s) + σ(σ − 1).
We assume t > 41.232345 in this section. Since we had known the
truth of the Riemann hypothesis for |t| ≤ 41.232345 even in the early
stage of numerical verifications ([1], [5] and [7]), it is not a restriction.
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 43

Then R(s) > 0, B(s) < 0 and C(s) < 0 by Lemma 1. The equation
(8.1) means
p
−B(s) + B(s)2 − 4R(s)C(s)
T =
2R(s)
2
p T > 0. We set D(s) = B(s) − 4R(s)C(s) and A(s) = −B(s) +
for
D(s). Then, we have
s
A(s)
(8.2) t= .
2R(s)
The second equation of (2.3) is equivalent to
4
t + (2σ 2 − 2σ + 1)t2 + σ 2 (σ − 1)2 I(s) = (2σ − 1)t.

We substitute (8.2) into the above equation. Then we have

( 2 )
A(s) A(s)
+ (2σ 2 − 2σ + 1) + σ 2 (σ − 1)2 I(s)
2R(s) 2R(s)
s
A(s)
= (2σ − 1) .
2R(s)
Multiplying it squared by (2R(s))4 , we obtain
2
A(s)2 + 2(2σ 2 − 2σ + 1)A(s)R(s) + 4σ 2 (σ − 1)2 R(s)2 I(s)2

(8.3)
= 8(2σ − 1)2 A(s)R(s)3 .
For the sake of simplicity, we set α(σ) = 4σ 2 −4σ+1, β(σ) = 2σ 2 −2σ+1
and γ(σ) = 3σ 2 − 3σ + 1. Since
A(s)2 + 2(2σ 2 − 2σ + 1)A(s)R(s) + 4σ 2 (σ − 1)2 R(s)2
= {A(s) + (2σ 2 − 2σ + 1)R(s)}2 + 4σ 2 (σ − 1)2 − (2σ 2 − 2σ + 1)2 R(s)2

 p 2
= 1 + D(s) − (4σ 2 − 4σ + 1)R(s)2
p
= 1 + 2 D(s) + D(s) − (4σ 2 − 4σ + 1)R(s)2
 p 
= 2 1 + D(s) − α(σ)R(s) ,

(8.3) is equivalent to
n p  p  o
1 + 2 D(s) + D(s) − 2 1 + D(s) α(σ)R(s) + α(σ) R(s) I(s)2
2 2

 p 
= 2(2σ − 1)2 −B(s) + D(s) R(s)3 .
44 YUKITAKA ABE

Then we have

p
2 (1 − α(σ)R(s)) I(s)2 − 2(2σ − 1)2 R(s)3

D(s)
= − 1 + D(s) − 2α(σ)R(s) + α(σ)2 R(s)2 I(s)2

− 2(2σ − 1)2 B(s)R(s)3 .

We multiply it by itself. Then we have

2
(8.4) 4 (1 − α(σ)R(s))I(s)2 − (2σ − 1)2 R(s)3 D(s)


= 1 + D(s) − 2α(σ)R(s) + α(σ)2 R(s)2 I(s)2



2
+2(2σ − 1)2 B(s)R(s)3 .

Since

D(s) = B(s)2 − 4R(s)C(s)

= (4σ 2 − 4σ + 1)R(s)2 − 2(4σ 2 − 4σ + 1)R(s) + 1
= α(σ)R(s)2 − 2α(σ)R(s) + 1,

we have

1 + D(s) − 2α(σ)R(s) + α(σ)2 R(s)2

= 2 α(σ)β(σ)R(s)2 − 2α(σ)R(s) + 1 .

Then, it follows from (8.4) that

(1 − α(σ)R(s))2 I(s)4 − 2(2σ − 1)2 (1 − α(σ)R(s)) R(s)3 I(s)2


(8.5)
+ (2σ − 1)4 R(s)6 α(σ)R(s)2 − 2α(σ)R(s) + 1



2
= α(σ)β(σ)R(s)2 − 2α(σ)R(s) + 1 I(s)4
+ 2(2σ − 1)2 α(σ)β(σ)R(s)2 − 2α(σ)R(s) + 1 B(s)R(s)3 I(s)2

+ (2σ − 1)4 B(s)2 R(s)6 .

 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 45

The left side minus the right side of (8.5) equals

α(σ) (1 + α(σ) − 2β(σ)) R(s)2 I(s)4
− 2α(σ)2 (1 + α(σ) − 2β(σ)) R(s)3 I(s)4
+ α(σ)2 α(σ) − β(σ)2 R(s)4 I(s)4

+ 2(2σ − 1)2 α(σ) (−1 − 2α(σ) + 3β(σ)) R(s)5 I(s)2

+ 2(2σ − 1)2 α(σ) α(σ) − β(σ)2 R(s)6 I(s)2

+ (2σ − 1)4 α(σ) − β(σ)2 R(s)8

+ 2(2σ − 1)2 (α(σ) − β(σ)) R(s)4 I(s)2

+ 2(2σ − 1)4 (β(σ) − α(σ)) R(s)7 .
Dividing it by R(s)2 , we set
F (s) := α(σ) (1 + α(σ) − 2β(σ)) I(s)4
− 2α(σ)2 (1 + α(σ) − 2β(σ)) R(s)I(s)4
+ α(σ)2 α(σ) − β(σ)2 R(s)2 I(s)4

+ 2(2σ − 1)2 α(σ) (−1 − 2α(σ) + 3β(σ)) R(s)3 I(s)2

+ 2(2σ − 1)2 α(σ) α(σ) − β(σ)2 R(s)4 I(s)2

+ (2σ − 1)4 α(σ) − β(σ)2 R(s)6

+ 2(2σ − 1)2 (α(σ) − β(σ)) R(s)2 I(s)2

+ 2(2σ − 1)4 (β(σ) − α(σ)) R(s)5 .
Since 1+α(σ)−2β(σ) = 0, α(σ) = (2σ −1)2 , α(σ)−β(σ)2 = −4σ 2 (σ −
1)2 , α(σ) − β(σ) = 2σ(σ − 1) and −1 − 2α(σ) + 3β(σ) = β(σ) − α(σ) =
−2σ(σ − 1), we obtain
F (s) = −4σ 2 (σ − 1)2 (2σ − 1)4 R(s)2 I(s)4
− 4σ(σ − 1)(2σ − 1)4 R(s)3 I(s)2
− 8σ 2 (σ − 1)2 (2σ − 1)4 R(s)4 I(s)2
− 4σ 2 (σ − 1)2 (2σ − 1)4 R(s)6
+ 4σ(σ − 1)(2σ − 1)2 R(s)2 I(s)2
− 4σ(σ − 1)(2σ − 1)4 R(s)5 .
Let
G(s) := σ(σ − 1)(2σ − 1)2 I(s)4 + (2σ − 1)2 R(s)I(s)2
+ 2σ(σ − 1)(2σ − 1)2 R(s)2 I(s)2 + σ(σ − 1)(2σ − 1)2 R(s)4
− I(s)2 + (2σ − 1)2 R(s)3 .
46 YUKITAKA ABE

Then we have

(8.6) F (s) = −4σ(σ − 1)(2σ − 1)2 R(s)2 G(s).

Proposition 1. If s = σ + it with 12 < σ < 1 and t > 41.232345 is a

zero of ξ(s), then we have G(s) = 0.

Proof. In the above, we showed F (s) = 0 if ξ(s) = 0. By Lemma

1, −4σ(σ − 1)(2σ − 1)2 R(s)2 > 0 for any s with 21 < σ < 1 and
t > 41.232345. Then G(s) = 0 by (8.6). □
1
Theorem 1. There exists T0 > 0 such that any s = σ + it with 2
<
σ < 1 and t > T0 is not a zero of ζ(s).

Proof. It suffices to find a region in which G(s) ̸= 0, by Proposition 1.

Adding to α(σ), β(σ) and γ(σ), we set
(
C1 (σ) = 5σ 4 − 10σ 3 + 10σ 2 − 5σ + 1,
C2 (σ) = 3σ 4 − 6σ 3 + 7σ 2 − 4σ + 1

and
(
D1 (σ) = 7σ 6 − 21σ 5 + 35σ 4 − 35σ 3 + 21σ 2 − 7σ + 1,
D2 (σ) = 4σ 6 − 12σ 5 + 22σ 4 − 24σ 3 + 16σ 2 − 6σ + 1.

Then, we have

1 1 1 1 1
(8.7) R(s) = 2
− 4 γ(σ) + 6 C1 (σ) − 8 D1 (σ) − 9 α1 (s)
t t t t t
and
1 1 1
I(s) = (2σ − 1) − (2σ − 1)β(σ) + (2σ − 1)C2 (σ)
(8.8) t3 t5 t7
1 1
− 9 (2σ − 1)D2 (σ) − 10 β1 (s)
t t
by (6.5) and (6.6). Therefore, we obtain

1 2 1
R(s)2 = 2


− γ(σ) + γ(σ) + 2C 1 (σ)
t4 t6 t8
(8.9)  
2 1
− 10 (D1 (σ) + γ(σ)C1 (σ)) + O 11
t t
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 47

and
1 2
I(s)2 = 6
(2σ − 1)2 − 8 (2σ − 1)2 β(σ)
t t
1
+ 10 (2σ − 1)2 β(σ)2 + 2C2 (σ)


t
(8.10) 2
− 12 (2σ − 1)2 (D2 (σ) + β(σ)C2 (σ))
t  
2 1
+ (2σ − 1) O 13 .
t

1 1



We note that the boundedness of O t11
and O t13
is uniform for
1
2
< σ < 1 by Lemmas 2 and 3.
We rewrite G(s) as

2
G(s) = σ(σ − 1)(2σ − 1)2 R(s)2 + I(s)2
+ (2σ − 1)2 R(s) R(s)2 + I(s)2 − I(s)2 .

Then, we have

G(s)
2
2
= σ(σ − 1) R(s)2 + I(s)2
(2σ − 1)
(8.11)
I(s)2
+ R(s) R(s)2 + I(s)2 −


.
(2σ − 1)2

It follows from (8.9) and (8.10) that

 
2 12 1 1 1 1
R(s) + I(s) = 4 − 6 β(σ) + 8 C2 (σ) − 10 E(σ) + O ,
t t t t t11

where we set

E(σ) = 4σ 6 − 12σ 5 + 22σ 4 − 24σ 3 + 16σ 2 − 6σ + 1.

Then, we obtain

2 1 2 1
R(s)2 + I(s)2 2


= − β(σ) + β(σ) + 2C 2 (σ)
t8 t10  t12
(8.12)
1
+ O 14
t
48 YUKITAKA ABE

and
(8.13)
1 1
R(s) R(s)2 + I(s)2 = 6 − 8 (β(σ) + γ(σ))


t t
1
+ 10 (β(σ)γ(σ) + C1 (σ) + C2 (σ))
t
1
− 12 (β(σ)C1 (σ) + γ(σ)C2 (σ) + E(σ))
t  
1
+ O 14 .
t
Moreover, we have
I(s)2 1 2 1
= 6 − 8 β(σ) + 10 β(σ)2 + 2C2 (σ)


(2σ − 1) 2 t t t
(8.14)  
2 1
− 12 (D2 (σ) + β(σ)C2 (σ)) + O 13
t t
by (8.10). Hence, it holds that
 
G(s) 1 1
2
= 12 φ(σ) + O
(2σ − 1) t t13
by (8.12), (8.13) and (8.14), where we set
φ(σ) = 7σ 6 − 21σ 5 + 35σ 4 − 35σ 3 + 20σ 2 − 6σ + 1.
Since φ(σ) is monotonously increasing on 12 , 1 and φ 21 = 17



64
, we
17 1
have φ(σ) > 64 for 2 < σ < 1. Therefore, there exists T0 > 0 such that
G(s) > 0 for any s = σ + it with 12 < σ < 1 and t > T0 . Thus, the
proof is complete. □

9. Lemma on Dirichlet series

This section is devoted to the following lemma which is a variant of
Lemma 3.12 in [8].
Lemma 4. We assume that a Dirichlet series
∞
X an
f (s) =
n=1
ns
is absolutely convergent for σ > 1. Take σ0 < 1 and c > 0 with
σ0 + c > 1. Let g(s) be an entire function with finite number of zeros
Zg = {α1 , . . . , αN } such that σ0 < Re(αj ) < σ0 + c (j = 1, . . . , N ) and
|g(s)| → ∞ as s → ∞. Then, there exist meromorphic functions hn (s)
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 49

(1 ≤ n < x) on C whose poles are at most α1 , . . . , αN and all simple

such that
Z c+iT
X an  1 f (s + w) xw

1
(9.1) s
+ hn (s) = dw
n<x
n g(s) 2πi c−iT g(s + w) w
X an X an
+ s
Rn (c, x, T )(s) + Q (c, x, T )(s)
s n
n<x
n x<n
n

for any s ∈ D(σ0 , T ) \ Zg , where a positive number x is not an integer,

T is a positive number with |Im(αj )| < T4 (j = 1, . . . , N ), D(σ0 , T ) =
{σ + it; σ0 ≤ σ, |t| < T4 }, and Rn (c, x, T )(s) and Qn (c, x, T )(s) are
holomorphic functions depending only on g(s), n, c, x, T and satisfying
(9.2)
M  x c M  x c
|Rn (c, x, T )(s)| < and |Qn (c, x, T )(s)| <
AπT n AπT n
on D(σ0 , T ) for some constants A and M . Therefore, the right side of
(9.1) converges absolutely and uniformly on D(σ0 , T ).
1 x w 1


Proof. Take any s ∈ D(σ0 , T ). A function g(s+w) n w
of w has poles
1

α −s
at w = 0, α1 −s, . . . , αN −s. It has the residues g(s) and aj nx j αj1−s
1
at w = 0 and αj − s respectively, where aj is the residue of g(s) at αj .
We define a meromorphic function
N  x αj −s
X 1
hn (s) := aj .
j=1
n αj − s

If n < x, then we obtain

Z c−iT Z c+iT Z −∞+iT 
1 1  x w dw
+ +
2πi −∞−iT c−iT c+iT g(s + w) n w
1
= + hn (s)
g(s)
by the residue theorem. Let
  
 1  3 5
M := sup    ; s = u + it, −∞ < u < ∞, T ≤ |t| ≤ T .
g(s)  4 4
Then we have 0 < M < ∞ by the assumption of g(s). Therefore, the
following estimation holds
 Z c−iT  x w dw  c
 1 1
  < M (x/n) .
 2πi
−∞−iT g(s + w) n w  2πT log(x/n)
50 YUKITAKA ABE

Similarly we have
−∞+iT c
 Z  x w dw 
 1 1
  < M (x/n) .
 2πi g(s + w) n w  2πT log(x/n)
c+iT

We define
Z c−iT Z −∞+iT 
1 1  x w dw
Rn (c, x, T )(s) := + .
2πi −∞−iT c+iT g(s + w) n w

Then we obtain
Z c+iT
1 1  x w dw 1
(9.3) = + hn (s) − Rn (c, x, T )(s)
2πi c−iT g(s + w) n w g(s)

and
M (x/n)c
|Rn (c, x, T )(s)| <
πT log(x/n)

for s ∈ D(σ0 , T ).
For x < n, we similarly obtain
Z c+iT Z c−iT Z ∞−iT 
1 1  x w dw
+ + = 0,
2πi ∞+iT c+iT c−iT g(s + w) n w

because there is no residue term. If we set

Z ∞+iT Z c−iT 
1 1  x w dw
Qn (c, x, T )(s) := + ,
2πi c+iT ∞−iT g(s + w) n w

then we have
Z c+iT
1 1  x w dw
(9.4) = −Qn (c, x, T )(s).
2πi c−iT g(s + w) n w

We also obtain

M (x/n)c
|Qn (c, x, T )(s)| <
πT | log(x/n)|

for s ∈ D(σ0 , T ) by the same way as above.

 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 51

From (9.3) and (9.4), it follows that

Z c+iT X an 1 Z c+iT
1 f (s + w) xw 1  x w dw
dw =
2πi c−iT g(s + w) w n<x
ns 2πi c−iT g(s + w) n w
X an 1 Z c+iT
1  x w dw
+
x<n
ns 2πi c−iT g(s + w) n w
X an  
1
= s
+ hn (s)
n<x
n g(s)
X an
− R (c, x, T )(s)
s n
n<x
n
X an
− Q (c, x, T )(s).
s n
x<n
n
Then we obtain (9.1). Furthemore, we can take A > 0 such that
| log(x/n)| > A for any n ∈ N, by the assumption of x. Hence, we also
obtain (9.2). □

10. Proof of the Riemann hypothesis

Let
B := sup{β; ζ(β + iγ) = 0, γ ̸= 0}.
The Riemann hypothesis states B = 21 . We recall the theorem of de
la Vallée Poussin ([2]) which says that there is a constant A > 0 such
that ζ(s) is not zero for
A
σ ≥1− (t > t0 ),
log t
where t0 is some positive constant. We may restate it as follows:
if s = σ + it (t > t0 ) satisfies
 
A
(10.1) t ≤ exp ,
1−σ
then ζ(s) ̸= 0.
1
Proposition 2. It holds that 2
≤ B < 1.
Proof. Since
 
A
exp −→ ∞ as
σ −→ 1 − 0,
1−σ
A


there exists σ0 < 1 such that T0 < exp 1−σ for σ0 < σ < 1, where T0
is the constant in Theorem 1. Then, there is no zero of ζ(s) in a region
σ0 < σ by Theorem 1 and the theorem of de la Vallée Poussin. □
52 YUKITAKA ABE

1
Proposition 3. If 2
< B < 1, then there is no zero of ζ(s) on the line
σ = B.
Proof. If the function ζ(s) has a zero on σ = B, then the number of ze-
ros of ζ(s) on σ = B is finite by Theorem 1. Let ZB = {ρ1 , ρ1 , . . . , ρN , ρN }
be the set of zeros of ζ(s) on the line σ = B. By Theorem 1, there
exists δ0 > 0 such that there are no zeros of ζ(s) except ZB in the set
{σ + it; B − δ0 ≤ σ, −∞ < t < ∞}.
It is well-known that
∞
1 X µ(n)
=
ζ(s) n=1 ns
for σ > 1. We define an entire function g(s) by
N
Y
g(s) := (s − ρj )(s − ρj ).
j=1

Then, its zeros are ZB , and |g(s)| −→ ∞ as s → ∞. We take T > 0

such that |Im(ρj )| < T4 for j = 1, . . . , N . Putting σ0 = B − δ0 and
c = 2, we apply Lemma 4. We take x > 1 which is not an integer, and
fix it. Then we have
(10.2)
Z 2+iT
X µ(n)  1 xw

1 1
s
+ h n (s) = dw
n<x
n g(s) 2πi 2−iT ζ(s + w)g(s + w) w
X µ(n)
+ s
Rn (2, x, T )(s)
n<x
n
X µ(n)
+ Qn (2, x, T )(s)
x<n
ns
for s ∈ D(σ0 , T ) \ ZB , where hn (s) is a meromorphic function on C
whose poles are at most ZB and all simple.
1 xw
We consider the integral of ζ(s+w)g(s+w) w
along C = C0 + C1 + C2 +
C3 , where C0 , C1 , C2 and C3 are segments from 2 − iT to 2 + iT , from
2 + iT to − δ20 + iT , from − δ20 + iT to − δ20 − iT and from − δ20 − iT to
2 − iT , respectively. We set
 
1 1 T
D0 := σ + it; B − δ0 < σ < B + δ0 , |t| < .
4 4 4
Then D0 ⊂ D(σ0 , T ) and ZB ⊂ D0 . For any s ∈ D0 \ ZB , the poles
1 xw
of ζ(s+w)g(s+w) w
in a domain surrounded by C are w = 0, ρ1 − s, ρ1 −
1 xw
s, . . . , ρN − s and ρN − s. The residue of ζ(s+w)g(s+w) w
at w = 0 is
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 53

1 1
ζ(s)g(s)
. Let aj and bj be the residues of ζ(s)g(s)
at ρj and ρj respectively.
ρj −s
1 xw
Then, the residues of ζ(s+w)g(s+w) w
at ρj − s and ρj − s are aj xρj −s and
ρj −s
bj xρj −s respectively. We define
N 
xρj −s xρj −s
X 
Q(s) := aj + bj .
j=1
ρj − s ρj − s

Then, Q(s) is a meromorphic function on C whose poles are at most

ZB and all simple. We note that Re(s + w) > B − 34 δ0 if s ∈ D0 and w
is on C. If s ∈ D0 and w is on C2 , then Re(s + w) < B − 41 δ0 . Then,
1 xw
ζ(s+w)g(s+w) w
is holomorphic on C as a function of w for any s ∈ D0 .
By the residue theorem, we obtain
xw
Z
1 1 1
dw = + Q(s)
2πi C ζ(s + w)g(s + w) w ζ(s)g(s)
for s ∈ D0 \ ZB . Therefore we have
Z 2+iT
1 1 xw 1
(10.3) dw = + Q(s) + P (s)
2πi 2−iT ζ(s + w)g(s + w) w ζ(s)g(s)
for s ∈ D0 \ ZB , where
xw
Z
1 1
P (s) = − dw
2πi C1 +C2 +C3 ζ(s + w)g(s + w) w
is a holomorphic function on D0 . We set
 
3 1 3 5
E := σ + it; B − δ0 ≤ σ ≤ B + 2 + δ0 , T ≤ |t| ≤ T
4 4 4 4
[ 3 1 5

σ + it; B − δ0 ≤ σ ≤ B − δ0 , |t| ≤ T .
4 4 4
Then we have {s + w; s ∈ D0 , w ∈ C1 ∪ C2 ∪ C3 } ⊂ E. Since there is
1
no pole of ζ(s)g(s) on E, we can take M0 > 0 such that
 
 1 
 ζ(s)g(s)  < M0
 

on E. Then we obtain
xw  M0 x2
Z 
 1
 dw <
C1 ζ(s + w)g(s + w) w
  T log x
and
xw  M0 x2
Z 
 1
 dw <

C3 ζ(s + w)g(s + w) w T log x
54 YUKITAKA ABE

δ0
for s ∈ D0 . Since we have w = − δ20 + it and xw = eit log x x− 2 on C2 ,
we obtain
w
Z 
 1 x  < 4 M0 T x− 20
 δ
 dw
 ζ(s + w)g(s + w) w
C2
 δ0

for s ∈ D0 . It follows from the above estimates that

1 2M0 x2
 
4 δ
− 20
(10.4) |P (s)| < + M0 T x
2π T log x δ0
on D0 .
By (10.2) and (10.3), we obtain
X µ(n)  1 
1
s
+ hn (s) = + Q(s) + P (s)
n<x
n g(s) ζ(s)g(s)
X µ(n)
(10.5) + s
Rn (2, x, T )(s)
n<x
n
X µ(n)
+ Qn (2, x, T )(s)
x<n
ns

for s ∈ D0 \ ZB . We see that a function

X µ(n) X µ(n)
P (s) + s
R n (2, x, T )(s) + s
Qn (2, x, T )(s)
n<x
n x<n
n

is bounded on D0 by the properties of Rn (2, x, T )(s) and Qn (2, x, T )(s),

1
and (10.4). The functions g(s) , hn (s) and Q(s) are meromorphic func-
tions on C whose poles are at most ZB and all simple. On the other
1
hand, the function ζ(s)g(s) has poles of order at least 2 at every point
in ZB . This contradicts to the equation (10.5). Hence, there is no zero
of ζ(s) on the line σ = B. □
Proof of the Riemann hypothesis.
We may assume 12 ≤ B < 1 by Proposition 2. Suppose that 12 <
B < 1. Then there is no zero of ζ(s) on the line σ = B by Proposition
3. Hence, we can take B ′ with 21 < B ′ < B such that ζ(s) ̸= 0 for
B ′ < σ by Theorem 1. This contradicts to the definition of B. Thus
we conclude B = 12 .

References
[1] R. Backlund, Sur les zéros de la fonction ζ(s) de Riemann, C. R. Acad. Sci.
Paris, V., 158 (1914), 1979–1982.
 A RIGOROUS PROOF OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS 55

[2] C. J. de la Vallée Poussin, Sur la fonction ζ(s) de Riemann et le nombre des

nombres premiers inférieurs à une limite donée, Mém. Couronnés et Autres
Mém. Publ. Acad. Roy. Sci. des lettres Beaux-Arts Belg., 59 (1899–1900), 1–
74.
[3] X. Gourdon, The 1013 first zeros of the Riemann zeta
function, and zeros computation at very large height,
http://numbers.computation.free.fr/Constants/Miscellaneouszetazeros1e13-
1e24.pdf.
[4] J. Gram, Note sur les zéros de la fonction ζ(s) de Riemann, Acta Math., 27
(1903), 289–304.
[5] J. I. Hutchinson, On the roots of the Riemann zeta-function, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc., 27 (1925), 49–60.
[6] B. Riemann, Über die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Grösse,
Monat. der Königl. Preuss. Akad. der Wissen. zu Berlin aus der Jahre 1859,
(1860), 671–680.
[7] E. C. Titchmarsh, The zeros of the Riemann zeta-function, Proc. Roy. Soc.
London, 151 (1935), 234–255; also ibid., 157 (1936), 261–263.
[8] E. C. Titchmarsh, The Theory of the Riemann Zeta Function, second edition,
edited and with a preface by D. R. Heath-Brown, The Clarendon Press, Oxford
University Press, New York, 1986.

Department of Mathematics, University of Toyama, Toyama 930-

8555, Japan
Email address: snb35525@nifty.com