The boundary between the Prime Gaps and

the Interchangeable between a Quantum

Mechanics System & a Classical Chaos One

(Carson) Lam Kai Shun

British National Oversea

B.Sc (HKU).,

M.Com.Engine., M.I.T.E.,

University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Fellow of Scholar Academic Scientific Society, India

Email: h9361977@connect.hku.hk

sonsonshek@gmail.com
Abstract
With reference to my last paper, this author found that there are always some
discrete quantum constants like the Planck’s one laying between the real and the
imaginary parts of the Riemann function (I.e when we fix or group the Riemann Ze-
ros one by one and make the real part to be varying.) or the quantum mechanics sys-
tem. Hence, the Riemann Zeta Zeros give us the discrete quantum constants together
with the given discrete quantum constants may give you the wanted Riemann Zeta
Zeros. This phenomenon may be explained by Quantum Riemann Zeta Epiphancy.
In the present paper, this author tries to fix or group the real part of the Rie-
mann Zeros and make the imaginary part of the Riemann Zeros to be varying from
one to the tenth one or resulting a chaos like graph. Thus, it seems that we may inter-
change a quantum mechanics system with the classical chaos one by just varying one
variable and fix another one (such as varying real part of the Riemann function’s ze-
ors from 0.1 to 1 and fix the imaginary part of the Riemann zeros one group after one
another). Certainly, the vice versa for the fix of the real part (one group after another)
with different Riemann Zeros may also help. In other words, the quantum mechanics
system is just the conjugate pair (varying x and fixed y variables) of the classical
chaos one or the vice versa is also true (fixed x and varying y variables) & put back
into the Zeta functions etc. Hence, it is a method (or transformation) for us so that we
may easily to make a interchange between these two systems by only adjusting or se-
lecting which variables to be varying or fixed. Then we may turn the classical chaos
system into a quantum mechanics one or the vice versa. This implies that it may be
possible to apply controllable quantum systems for the investigation of our natural as-
pects.
Finally, this author have also shown that there is a boundary laying between the
prime gap through the elementary calculation and mathematical derivation without
using the computer software etc. It is thus a contradiction to the fact that there is no
bound for the prime gap. This tells us that there is a need to have a shift from zero to
0.5 for the real part of the Riemann Zeta Zeros as what this author has mentioned in
my last paper etc.
Introduction
In my last paper, this paper has found some Planck’s like discrete quantum
constants exist between the real and imaginary parts of Riemann Zeta zeros. Indeed,
these discrete quantum constants can be fitted well as the evidenced proof for the
Quantum Riemann Zeta Epiphany. In the present paper, this author tries to convert
such quantum system into the classical chaotics one or the vice versa. In the follow-
ing content, this author applies some mathematic-a code together with the spread-
sheet Excel for such kind of investigations. It is hope that through my computer simu-
lations between the real and imaginary of the Riemann Zeta substitutions (values), we
may make a further advance in the establishing quantum computer etc.

The Boundary for Prime Gaps (or A Proof for the

Truthness of Riemann Hypothesis)
To show the following Riemann Zeta equation(s) – ξ(s) may be only true for the case
of s = 0.5:
∞ ∞ ∞
s
( z − z i ) = ξ(s) = ∑ 1/n = ∏ ( 1− 1/ prime j ) ------------ (*’)
s −s
∏
i=1 n=1 j=1
On the contrary, suppose we have the following equation for number theory of Riemann
Zeta function ξ(1):

∞ ∞ ∞
−1
∏ ( z − z i ) = ξ(1) = ∑ 1/n = ∏ ( 1− 1/ prime j ) ------------ (*)
i=1 n=1 j=1

By definition:
j+1 j −1
1
Pj+1 = [∑ 1/i] / [ ∏ ( 1− 1/ primei )
i=1 i=1
(
−1
1−
Prime j+1 ) ]

j +1 j
−1 −1
Also, Pj+1 = ∏ ( z − z j ) / [( ∏ ( 1− 1/ prime i ) * ( 1− 1/ prime j +1 ) )] -----------(*’)
i=1 i=1

j j
( 1− 1/ prime j +1 )*Pj+1 = [∏ ( z − z i ) * (z - zj+1)/ ( ∏ ( 1− 1/ primei )− 1)]
i=1 i=1
If we first replace the primej+1 & primej in (*’) by Pj+1 & Pj , then we have:
j
Pj+1 – 1 = ∏ ( z − z i ) *(z - zj+1) / Hj ------------- ( by definition of Harmonic Sum
i=1

j
Hj = ∑ 1/i )
i=1

j j

Pj+1 = ( ∏ ( z − z i ) * (z - zj+1)/ ∑ 1/i) +1 ----------(**”)

i=1 i=1

j+1
But it is well known that ln ( j+1 ) ⩽ ∑ 1/i ⩽ 1+ln ( j+1 )
i=1

j j

( ∏ ( z − z i ) * (z – zj+1) / 1+ln ( j+1 )) +1 ≤ Pj+1 ⩽ ( ∏ ( z − z i ) * (z – zj+1) / ln ( j+1 )) +1

i=1 i=1

i i i j
−1
But Pj = [ ∏ ( z − z j ) / ( ∏ ( 1− 1/ p j ) )] or Pj = ( ∏ ( z − z j ) / ∑ 1/i )
j=1 j=1 j=1 i=1

----- (by definition of Pj and equation (*)),

j j

i.e. (∏ ( z − z i ) / 1+ln ( j )) ≤ Pj ⩽ (∏ ( z − z i ) / ln ( j )), thus we have:

i=1 i=1

[( 1 / ln ( j+1 )) - (1 / ln ( j ))] ⩽ [( 1 / ln ( j+1 )) - (1 / 1+ln ( j ))] ≤ Pj+1 – Pj ⩽ [( 1 / ln ( j )) -

(1 / 1+ln ( j ))] ≤ [( 1 / 1+ln ( j+1 )) - (1 / 1+ln ( j ))]

Or [(1 / ln ( j+1 )) - ( 1 / 1+ln ( j ))] ≤ Pj+1 – Pj ⩽ [(1 / 1+ln ( j+1 )) - (1 / ln ( j ))]

----- (Equation (**)
2 ( x −1 )
By applying the Taylor approximation to both ln ( j ) and ln ( j+1 ) for the above
( x+1 )
equation (**), we may get:
1 1 1 1
( 1+ 2 j - 2 j −1 ) . ≤ .Pj+1 – Pj . ⩽ . ( 2 j - 2 j − 1 ) )
( ) (
1+
j+2 j +1 j+2 j +1
2 2
5 j +7 j− 2 j +3 j+2
1/( 2 ) . ≤ .Pj+1 – Pj . ⩽ . 1/( 2 )
6 j −2 j − 4 6 j −2 j
By taking limit for j tends to infinity for both sides, we may have the boundary as
below:
6/5 . ≤ .Pj+1 – Pj . ⩽ . 6
Also,
[( 1 / ln ( j+1 )) + (1 / 1+ln ( j+1 ))] ⩽ [( 1 / ln ( j+1 )) + (1 / ln ( j ))] ≤ Pj+1 + Pj ⩽ [( 1 / ln ( j )) +

(1 / 1+ln ( j ))] ≤ [( 1 / 1+ln ( j )) + (1 / 1+ln ( j )) ] ----- (Equation (**’)

2 ( x −1 )
By applying the Taylor approximation to both ln ( j ) and ln ( j+1 ) for the above
( x+1 )
equation (**), we may get:
1 1 1 1
2j + 2 ∗ j . ≤ . Pj+1 + Pj . ≤ . 2 ∗ j −1 +
( ) 2 ∗ ( j −1 )
1+ 1+
j+2 j+2 j +1 j +1

After simplifying, we may get:

Pj+1 + Pj = 5/6,
But it is well known that:
1
(1 – ½) (1 – 1/3) (1 – 1/5) … (1 – 1/primej)(1 – 1/primej+1)*ξ(1) = 1 + ∑ n
p / n for p> Prime

1
i.e. (1 – 1/primej+1) = ( 1 + ∑ n
) / [ξ(1)*(1 – ½) (1 – 1/3) (1 – 1/5) … (1 –
p / n for p> Prime
1/primej)]

1
But ∑ n
tends to zero as Prime tends to infinity, thus
p / n for p> Prime

(1 – 1/Primej+1) = 1/[ξ(1)* ∑ 1/i], or

i=1
1- 1/Pj = 1/Primej+1, or

1/ [1- 1/Pj] = Primej+1

i.e. (Pj) / [(Pj) – 1] = Primej+1

Primej+1 – Primej = {(Pj) / [(Pj) – 1]} - {(Pj-1) / [(Pj-1) – 1]}

After simplifying, we may get:
Primej+1 – Primej = [-(Pj – Pj-1)] / [pjpj-1 - (pj+pj-1) +1] ----------(***)
Hence, -108/25 . ≤ .Primej+1 – Primej . ≤ .-72/25 which is obviously contradicting to
the fact that the prime gaps are always positive and non-fractional. Indeed, the
contradiction for the negative valued boundary occurs is mainly due to the initial
assumption of the Riemann zeta equation, for s = 1 or ξ(1) in (*).
Now, replace the ξ(1) by ξ(s) with s = u + v*I where {u, v are real numbers and
I = (-1)1/2 }/{0.5+y*I) for some y belongs to real}, then for the Harmonic sum Hj , it
j
tends to cot(j) and ∑ 1/i s = cot(j) / ln (j), [1],
i=1

j j+1
P*j+1 = ( ∏ ( z − zi ) s * (z - zj+1)s/ ∑ 1/i s)
i=1 i=1

j
s
= ( ∏ ( z − z i ) * (z – zj+1)s / [cot (s) / ln (s)]
i=1

j
s
= [ln(s)] * [( ∏ ( z − z i ) * (z – zj+1)s / cot (s)]
i=1

i.e. If the s changes from 1 to s = u + v*i, then there is a factor of [cot(s)/ln(s)].

j +1 j+1 j +1
s s 1−s
= ln(s) * [∏ ( z − z i ) / ∑ 1/i ] *[1/ ∏ ( z − z i ) ]
i=1 i=1 i=1

j +1
1−s
= ln(s)*Pj+1*[1/ ∏ ( z − z i ) ]
i=1

j +1 j+1
By the assumption of (*’), ∏ ( z − z i ) 1−s
= ∑ 1/i s ----------- (*’*), hence,
i=1 i=1

P*j+1 = Pj+1*[ln(s)*ln(1-s)*tan(1-s)]
i.e. the difference between s = 1, Pj+1, and s = u + v*I, P*j+1 for is only in the factor of
ln(s)*ln(1-s)*tan(1-s). Or to transform the Pj+1 into P*j+1, we have to multiple the
factor [ln(s)*ln(1-s)*tan(1-s)]. Let W = [ln(s)*ln(1-s)*tan(1-s)]
Substituting back into (***), we may get
Primej+1 – Primej = -W*[Pj – Pj-1] / [W2*Pj*Pj-1 – W*[Pj + Pj-1] + 1] -------- (****)
In fact, when the denumerator attains its minimum, then the prime gap gets its
maximum value, hence, we differentiate and find that:
Wmin = [Pj + Pj-1] / 2*Pj*Pj-1
Substitute back Wmin into (****), we get:
-4.1 . ≤ .Primej+1 – Primej . ≤ . -1.8
which is obviously a contradiction as the prime gap should never be a negative and
fractional value.
∞

Hence, (*’) is only true for s = 0.5 + y*I or ξ(0.5 + y*I) as ∑ 1/n0.5 + yi = 0 for some
n=1

non-trivial values of y belongs to real.

∞ ∞ ∞
i.e. ∏ ( z − zi )0.5+ yi = ξ(0.5) = ∑ 1/n0.5+ yi = ∏ ( 1− 1/ prime j )− ( 0.5+ yi ) ------------ (*’’)
i=1 n=1 j=1

Remaks: The addition of two primes (odd) is always even unless one of the prime
equals to 2 (even). The prime gap may be expressed as the addition and difference
j+1 j
between pj+1 = ∑ 1/i and pj = ∑ 1/i for ξ(1). Thus, in advancing a step, replace the Pj &
i=1 i=1

Pj-1 by Primej & Primej-1

Xj+1 – Xj = [-(Primej – Primej-1)] / [ Primej Primej-1 - (Primej + Primej-1) + 1]
= [-(Primej – Primej-1)*(2n)]
(-4.1)*2n . ≤ .Xj+1 – Xj . ≤ . (-1.8)*2n for any one of the primes NOT equal to 2 or some
of the elements in the set of even numbers 2n.
Or (-4.1)*(2n+1). ≤ . Xj+1 – Xj . ≤ . (-1.8)*(2n+1) for one of the addition primes equals
to 2 or some of the elements in the set of odd numbers 2n+1.
My suggestion is to prove the above two statements span for all elements in the set of
even numbers or odd numbers by mathematical induction individually. However, the
focus of the present paper is in the field of prime gap while the proof of the
Goldbach’s conjecture is out of the scope in this paper.
Indeed, by the Jurkat-Richard theorem, we may have the fact that every integer
greater than 6 is a sum of distinct primes [7]. This fact may imply the Chen’s theorem
which states every sufficient large even number can be written as the sum of either
two primes or a prime with a semiprime [8]. Actually, Chen’s theorem is a weakened
form of the Goldbach’s conjecture.
 Therefore, the difference (in boundary) between the two consective primes (or
the prime gap) is bounded if we just/only consider the absolute value or the length
of the prime gap, (i.e., | Primej+1 - Primej | . ≤ . 7 (as | (-108/25) + (-72/25) | = 7 or
approximate equals to 7) which is consistent with the fact that for any prime, it
should be in the form 6*(n) +/- 1 but NOT a necessary & sufficient condition for any
natural numbers or NOT all natural numbers in the form of 6*(n) +/- 1 must be prime.
Therefore, there may be some prime gaps which are greater than 7. Thus, we may
estimate back from the absolute values of prime gap to get back the interested/wanted
natural number. As to the fact that, Primej+1 – Primej must always be a positive value
which is contradicting to my previous computation that -108/25 . ≤ .Primej+1 – Primej
∞
1
. ≤ .-72/25. Moreover, it is also well known that ∑ prime diverges, [6], for all prime
i=1 i

primeis to infinity which is obviously a contradiction. Thus, the both contradictions,

(originated from the assumption of s = 1 in the equation (*) or ξ(1)), lead to the
conclusion that the equation (*) may be only true for the 0.5 + I*y as shown in my
previous aforementioned proof in the present section. In practice, we may consider
the consistent part in the absolute value of the prime gap together with the negative
boundary of the prime gap (which must be positive) as another kind of contradiction.
Therefore, there may be a type of new kind philosophy as I named it as “recursive
contradiction” or “contradiction entanglement” etc. Moreover, for ξ(s), s = u + v*I
where {u, v are real numbers and I = (-1)1/2 }/{0.5+yI) for some y}, the prime gaps: -
4.1 . ≤ .Primej+1 – Primej . ≤ . -1.8 which is obviously a contradiction as the assumption
that those complex values in {u, v are real numbers and I = (-1)1/2 }/{0.5+y*I) for
some y belongs to real}is true in (*’*) are incorrect. Thus, both cases of contradiction
(s = 1 & {u, v are real numbers and I = (-1)1/2 }/{0.5+y*I) for some y belongs to real})
are due to the fact that there are something wrong in the assumptions of the equations
∞ ∞ ∞

( z − z i ) = ξ(s) = ∑ 1/n = ∏ ( 1− 1/ prime j ) are true for (s = 1 & {u, v are real
s s −s
∏
i=1 n=1 j=1

numbers and I = (-1)1/2 }/{0.5+y*I).

The aforementioned proved facts imply that
∞ ∞ ∞
s s −s
∏ ( z − z i ) = ξ(s) = ∑ 1/n = ∏ ( 1− 1/ prime j ) are only true for s = 0.5 +y*I for some y
i=1 n=1 j=1

∞
belongs to real. It is because ∑ 1/n s = 0 is only true when s = 0.5 +y*I for some y
n=1

belongs to real, otherwise are all proved to be incorrect as aforementioned.

In brief, there may be a need for an ordinary x equals zero line to have a shift
to the line of x equals 0.5 in the Riemann Hypothesis. To advance a step, the
Riemann Hypothesis is thus partially proved for the truthness that the roots of zeta
function stay in the line x = 0.5 but NOT all points of x = 0.5 must be the roots of the
Riemann Zeta function as shown in my model of Riemann Zeros of my
aforementioned paper [1].
Finally, this author wants to remark that if we want to solve for the polynomial
P(x) like the following equation: x*P(x-1) = (x-3)*P(x).
x P(x)
Consider x −3 = ,
P ( x −1 )

x
For x ≠ 3 & x ≠ 1, x −3 = 1 − 3 =
1
=x*
P(x) x
P ( xx ) ,
P ( x −1 ) 1
x
( )
P 1−
x
1
x
Now suppose P(1) = 1, then ( = 3,
P x −1 ) 1 −
x
2 n− 1
x 3 3 3
or
P [ − ( 1− x ) ]
= [- (1 + +
x x () ( ) )]
+…+
x
x 3 3
2
3
n− 1
+( ) +…+(
x −1 )
or P − ( 1 − x ) −1 = [- (1 + )]
[ [ ]] x −1 x −1
2 n− 1
3 3 3
+( ) +…+(
x −1 )
i.e. P(x) = x / [- (1 + )]
x −1 x −1

which is obviously in a philosophical recursive geometric progression format and it is

somehow similar but NOT the same to my proof of Riemann Hypothesis in the
above.

Major Results and Findings

 In this paper together with my last one, this author has found a relationship be-
tween the quantum mechanics system and the classical chaos. Actually, we use
U.S.A. Mathematica for substituting back the real (from 0.1 to 1.0) and the imaginary part
of zeta roots with one root value in a group after another sense into Riemann Zeta function,
we may find the Planck's like quantum constants. In a vice versa way, if we fix the real part
once by a group (i.e. 0.1 a group, 0.2 a group, … , 1 a group), then we vary the imaginary
parts with those zeros from first to tenth and substitue back into the Zeta functio, we may
get the path of chaos. Indeed, if we consider the following table and figure for the
present Riemann Zeta quantum mechanics system, we may get (next page):
X is real (varied) and laying between 0.1 to 1 i*Y is the imaginary part (& fixed by group) from 1st to 10th
zeros (or Y may be considered as the energy spectrum of an
atom [4])
0.1 1st non-trivial zeros
0.2 1st non-trivial zeros
0.3 1st non-trivial zeros
0.4 1st non-trivial zeros
0.5 1st non-trivial zeros
0.6 1st non-trivial zeros
0.7 1st non-trivial zeros
0.8 1st non-trivial zeros
0.9 1st non-trivial zeros
1.0 1st non-trivial zeros
.
.
.
X is real (varied) and laying between 0.1 to 1 i*Y is the imaginary part (& fixed by group) from 1st to 10th
zeros (or Y may be considered as the energy spectrum of an
atom [4])
0.1 10th non-trivial zeros
0.2 10th non-trivial zeros
0.3 10th non-trivial zeros
0.4 10th non-trivial zeros
0.5 10th non-trivial zeros
0.6 10th non-trivial zeros
0.7 10th non-trivial zeros
0.8 10th non-trivial zeros
0.9 10th non-trivial zeros
1.0 10th non-trivial zeros
Table 1: By varying the real part X and fixed the imaginary part Y for non-trivial zeros by group
Then we may get the following direct proportional graph with a discrete quantum constant K1 =
0.16124064 for the 1st non-trivial zeros:

Figure 2: Quantum Riemann System with a discrete constant k1 with previous X and Y values
substitute back into the Riemann Zeta Function to obtain another set of X’ and Y’.
If on the contrary, we try to fix the variable X (and group by one another) together with making the
imaginary part with variable Y to be varied, then we may have the following table:
X is real but fixed (& group by one another from 0.1 to I*Y is varied and laying between 1st non-trivial zeros to10th non-trivial
zeros imaginary part’s value (or Y may be considered as the energy
1.0)
spectrum of an atom [4])

0.1 1st non-trivial zero

0.1 2nd non-trivial zero
0.1 3rd non-trivial zero
0.1 4th non-trivial zero
0.1 5th non-trivial zero
0.1 6th non-trivial zero
0.1 7th non-trivial zero
0.1 8th non-trivial zero
0.1 9th non-trivial zero
0.1 10th non-trivial zero
.
.
X is real but fixed (& group by one another from 0.1 to I*Y is varied and laying between 1st non-trivial zeros to10th non-trivial
zeros (or Y may be considered as the energy spectrum of an atom [4])
1.0)
1.0 1st non-trivial zero
1.0 2nd non-trivial zero
1.0 3rd non-trivial zero
1.0 4th non-trivial zero
1.0 5th non-trivial zero
1.0 6th non-trivial zero
1.0 7th non-trivial zero
1.0 8th non-trivial zero
1.0 9th non-trivial zero
1.0 10th non-trivial zero
Table 3: Fix the real part X by group and varies the imaginary part Y by those non-trivial zeros
Then we may have the following chaos graph for the value 0.1:
1.5

0.5

0 Column B
-1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4
-0.5

-1

-1.5
Figure 4: Classical Chaos with previous X and Y values substitute back into the Riemann Zeta
Function to obtain another set of X’’ and Y’’
By the comparing the above two sets of table (1 & 3) and figure (2 & 4), we may
observe that there is a method for the interchangeable relationship between the
Quantum Riemann System and the classical chaos or the vice versa. The key is just to
select which variables to be varying and the other one variable to be fixed by group.

Discussions & Significances

In my previous paper [1], this author has found that there are some discrete
quantum constants corresponding to each Riemann Zeta non-trivial zeros given
(Table 1 & Fig 2). Certainly, it is also true that if we may know any of these discrete
quantum constants in advance from experiment, then we may find the wanted
Riemann Zeta non-trivial zeros. Hence, from such numerical evidence (Table 1 & Fig
2) and relationships, we may prove that the Riemann Zeta function is indeed a kind of
quantum system or the so called “Quantum Riemann Zeta Epiphany”. In the present
paper, this author has also found that we may turn the above classical chaos one into
the Riemann Zeta Epiphany system if we can collect all of the nth entry (say all of the
1st non-trivial zeros in different groups with varying real part -- X) that is spread
among the Table 3, substitute back into the Riemann Zeta function and form the set
values X’ and Y’. In a vice versa way, we may also turn the Quantum Riemann Zeta
Epiphany system into the Chaotics one by a collection of nth entry (say all of the 1st
fixed real values with varying non-trivial zeros in different groups – Y), subsitute
back the just obtained X and Y into the Riemann Zeta function and get the set values
X” and Y” (has been tested by using commercial software Mathematic-a 13.1 Home
Edition: this author has downloaded from the U.S.A. official website with full
payment. In addition, this author may provide the details of the coding source
together with the Excel file for checking whenever requested).
In reality, it is well known that there is a strong relationship/correlation [2]
between the quantum entanglement and the classical chaos. According to [3],
thermalization may be the things connect the chaos and the entanglement. Indeed,
what the chaos theory study is the behavior in those highly sensitive and
unpredictable systems. Or the superposition theory that suggests a particle may be
located in several places at a time. For the entanglement, one may refer to the
particles that a deeply linked behave as such despite the physical distance from one
another. Therefore, if (we can find a method or transformation for the interchanging
between the quantum system and the chaos one and in a vice versa way), we may
convert the chaos (a particle that may be located in several places at a time) in the
superposition theory into a quantum system, then we may apply those found quantum
results (or even have some forecasted values in the locations of the particle by the
Quantum Field Theory) so that we may get some further advancements in developing
the ordinary type of quantum computers for our common people in the future just like
our present everyday using desktop computers. Or just in the worst case, we may still
have the chance to have an in-depth investigation of our nature aspects in the
superposition theory through the application of such resulted controllable quantum
systems.
With reference to [4], this author wants to remark that there is also classical
mechanics in physics. In practice, there are always some links among the classical
mechanics, quantum system and the chaos one. We may well connect the classic,
simple system with the quantum one by Bohr’s correspondence principle. Indeed, the
connection is the limit of objects become larger than than the size of an atom. At the
same time, the linking between the classic simple systems and the chaotic systems is
the Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser (KAM) theorem. Hence, one may calculate the
survivebility of the sturcture of the regular system when we introduce a small
perturbation, then we may identify those perturbations that lead a regular system to
undergo such chaotic behavior. However, there is no theorem to connect the quantum
system with the chaotic one. One is just well known that they are strongly correlated.
In the present paper, this author discovers an interchangeable way or transformation
between the quantum system and the chaotic one.
Lastly, if my finding of an interchangeable method between the quantum
system and the chaotic one is correct, then when one relates both of the Bohr’s
correspondence principle and the Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser (KAM) theorem, we
may construct a three way philosophy that includes the classical mechanics system,
chaotics system and the quantum system just like the Roger Penrose one or in [5].

Conclusions and Limitations

Last but not least, in the present paper, this author has shown there is an
interchangeable way (or transformation) for the conversion between the Quantum
Riemann Zeta Epiphany system and the classical chaotics one. Hence, we may finally
establish a better everyday usable quantum computer or at least one may make some
essential progresses in the advancement of it. In other words, we may build a new
type of Quantum Riemann Epiphany computer system by the present interchangeable
result together with tools like quantum tunneling, quantum fourier transform,
quantum filtering and convolution neural network etc for computing but NOT using
the ion trapping system etc to compute an accurate Riemann Zeta zeros values.
Certainly, in my last paper [1], this author has found some quantum constants
between the real part and the imaginary part of the Riemann zeros after their
substitution into the zeta function. Hence, these quantum constants may imply the
Riemann zeros or we may find the quantum constants from those Riemann zeros.
These discrete quantum constants are just like the case of Planck’s constant or give us
the evidence of proving the feasibility of Quantum Riemann Zeta Epiphany etc.
Indeed, the most Harry Potter’s JEG ER VOLDEMORT is how one may find
the more accurate values of Riemann zeros and then use the vice versa of my
HKLam Theory to approximate/compute the S-matrix together with the final
process getting the classical (or quantum) chaos paths. Hence, we may predict
the highest quantum entanglement path and seek for the control of a higher
quantum computing power as most of the quantum algorithms are always
employing quantum entanglements. In the vice versa way, once we know these
chaos, we may determine the more accurate Riemann Zeros on the line x = 0.5.
This is indeed a forward and backward philosophy together with the recursive
one. Thus, it is also an acculumated process with the results that gradually
modify the chaos path and those zeros. This author also notes that there may be a
need for the shift of zero line to 0.5 line as there is a contradiction for the boundary of
the prime gap. Certainly, there are still defects in my present results (or mathematical
computation values) as they are just obtained from the computer simulation and more
laboratory experiments should be done for any further scientific advancements. This
author summarizes the (machine learning) algorithm for computing the discrete
quantum constant as follow:
1. Obtain the fixed nth non-trivial zeros’ values each time -- Y;
2. Varying the real part from 0.1 to 1 -- X;
3. Substitute the varying real parts with the fixed nth non-trivial zeros into the Zeta
function again;
4. Get the real and imaginary parts’ values – X’ and Y’;
5. Plot the imaginary part Y’ against X’ by using spreadsheet software like Excel;
Similarly, we may obtain the Chaos by:
1. Fixed the real part by nth value from 0.1 to 1 – X;
2. Varying the imaginary parts with 1st to nth non-trivial zeros – Y;
3. Substitute back the above real part X and imaginary part Y back into the Zeta
function;
4. Get the another set of values X” and Y”;
5. Plot the imaginary part value Y” against X” by using spreadsheet software;
(Note: Alternatively, one may obtain the same result by just selecting all of the (say
the 1st set value of X’ and Y’ from the 1st non-trivial zeros until the 1st set value of X’
and Y’ for the nth non-trivial zeros in different groups or a collection of all nth set of
X’ and Y’ from (1 to nth non-trivial zeros in different groups) – another set of X” and
Y” is thus formed. In a vice versa way, a collection of all nth set of X” and Y”from 1
to nth real values in different groups to form the X’ and Y’, as this author has just
mentioned similar idea in the discussion section. It is only the interchange or the
conversion method between Quantum System and the Chaos one or turns the Chaos
to a Quantum system. Plot the graph by using a spreadsheet software).

Reference:
1. Shun L.K. (2023) The Quantized Constants with Remmen’s Scattering Amplitude
to Explain Riemann Zeta Zeros, International Journal of English Language Teaching,
Vol.11, No.4, pp.,20-33. (Note: the European-American Journal does NOT have any
journal in the field of Computational Physics etc.)
https://eajournals.org/ijelt/vol11-issue-4-2023/the-quantized-constants-with-
remmens-scattering-amplitude-to-explain-riemann-zeta-zeros/ or
Lam, Kai Shun, The Quantized Constants with Remmen’s Scattering Amplitude to
Explain Riemann Zeta Zeros (July 19, 2023). Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4514716 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4514716/
2. Neill, C., Roushan, P., Fang, M. et al. Ergodic dynamics and thermalization in an
isolated quantum system. Nature Phys 12, 1037–1041 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3830
3. Sonia Fernandez, 2016, Researchers blur the line between classical and quantum
physics by connecting chaos and entanglement,
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-blur-line-classical-quantum-physics.html
4. Martin Gutzwiller, 2008, Quantum Chaos,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-chaos-subatomic-worlds/
5. Shun CLK (2019) The Philosophical Implications of Set Theory in Infinity. J Phys
Math 10: 302. or
Lam, Kai Shun, The Philosophical Implications of Set Theory in Infinity (July 27,
2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2815293 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2815293
6. Dr.Trefor Bazett, Novenber, 2022, The Reciprocal Prime Series,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8emZWsdA8
7. Graham, E., Thomas, W., (2005) An Introduction to Number Theory, Springer
8. Ross, P.M. (1975). "On Chen's theorem that each large even number has the form
(p1+p2) or (p1+p2p3)". J. London Math. Soc. Series 2.10, 4 (4): 500–506.
doi:10.1112/jlms/s2-10.4.500