A Verification of Riemann Non-Trivial Zeros by

Complex Analysis by Matlab™ Computation

(Carson) Lam Kai Shun

British National Oversea

Fellow of Scholar Academic Scientific Society, India

Dignitary Fellow, International Organization for

Academic & Scientific Development, India

Email: [email protected]

Special thanks to those who have participated or contributed with backup behind
for this author (i.e. those unsung hero) in the present research project of Riemann
Hypothesis & Quantum Mechanics.
Abstract
With my most recent paper, I tried to prove the Riemann Hypothesis by
catching out those contradictory parts of the non-trivial zeros. In the present paper, I
will try to verify these known values of Riemann nontrivial zeros by first using
U.S.A. Matlab coding with a list of well organized complex analysis theories. At the
same time, as the major core of my verification is just a mono-direction one (i.e. there
may be a possibility of the missing non-trivial zeros although the residue value is
zero), hence this author try to solve such problem by assuming that there are some
other zeros existing between the two known zeros but the contradiction arises – as
singularity implies the residue has a value with a multiple of 2πi. In addition, this
author also apply the ingenious design (or a hybrid skill) with Feynman technique
and Integration by parts to solve a special zeta function integral. Next, this author
also find that one may consider those non-trivial zeros as a Fourier transform (or an
impulse) between other normal complex numbers. Hence, we may get the wanted
(dirac) delta equation for the Riemann Zeta function. The result is we may formulate
or establish our expected quantum circuit for any further usage or application.
Finally, this author conclude those findings with an algorithm for searching, finer and
checking the non-trivial zeta zeros like the following:
Step 1: Use the computer software with some suitable program codes for an
elementary search of feasible non-trivial zeta values among the closed real-complex
plane interval – Method Matlab Simulation for searching zeta zeros;
Step 2: Substitute back the values laying in the contour interval for zeta as found in
ln ( zeta ( z ) )
Step 1 into the limit of in order to adjust the answer in a finer and accurate
( zeta ' ( z ) )
way (just like the case of Newton’s method etc) with more decimal digitals – Method
Ingenious Design for finer the zeta zero’s values;
Step 3: Employ the Cauchy Residue Theorem for a check and hence confirm the
previous found non-trivial zeta roots’ uniqueness without any zeta zeros laying in
between the two consecutive zeta roots – Method Cauchy’s Residue for checking
those already found zeta zeros.
Introduction
There are lots of ways to solve the problem of Riemann Hypothesis.
In my previous paper [1], I tried to use some algebraic methods and got
some self-referenical contradictory results. These outcomes may finally
lead to an algorithm for solving the Riemann Hypothesis. In the present
paper, this author will mainly apply one of the complex analysis method –
analytic continutation by Taylor series [2] & [3] together with the complex
contour integral [4] to find the numerical values of the Riemann
Hypothesis non-trivial zeros. Indeed, this author will first implement some
U.S.A. Matlab™ (student lisenced 2022 version) programming script to
seek for the non-trivial zeros values’ approximation. At the same time, the
computer that calculates values in between these Riemann non-trivial
zeros will give the complex contour integral equal to zeros. However, the
result does NOT imply that there are NO non-trivial roots existing as the
pole may exist or the residue cancellation may occur [5]. This author will
show mathematically that the computed Riemann non-trivial zeros are
actually uniquely defined as otherwise a contradiction will occur (or a
multiple of 2π). Certainly, one should eliminate the option of residue
cancellation from the complex conjugate paired Riemann non-trivial zeros
in such case.
A Literatue Review for the well organised (or linked)
mathematical theories to guess the non-trivial Zeros
When we want to compute or vertify those Riemann non-trivial zeros
through the method of complex analysis, we may need to start from the
elementary integration on the real line [7]. Indeed, if we integrate a
function f(x) on the real line from the left to right, we may get a positive
value in general. On the contrary, if we integrate on the real line from the
right to left, then the resulted value will be negative. However, the above
situation is NOT true in the case of the complex functions where the path
of the contour is actually irrelvant. Thus, for the following contour
integral:
1
∲c z 2
dz ,

the computed value is in practice path independent or we will get the same calculated
value NO matter we select which path(s) for the computation of the complex contour
integral. To be precise [5], we have the following theorem:
Actually, by the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we have:
b

∫ f ' ( x ) dx=f ( b ) − f ( a )
a

d
dx
f (x) = f’(x)

Indeed, it makes sense for the integral from 1 to 2 on the real line but NOT
makes sense for the integral from 1 to i (or √ −1 ) . But if we blindly apply
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus to the function f’(z) = Z 2, then the
3
Z
f(z) = 3
. If we integrate the contour ∲c z2 dz from 0 to (1+i),
 3 3
( i+1 ) 0 −2 2
we may get: [ 3
- 3
] or after simplify, + i
3 3
or we have the Principal

of Path Independence [5]:

Let f(z) be a function that is analytic throughout a simple connected
domain D, and let z1 and z2 lie in D. Then if we use contours lying in D,
z2

the value of ∫ f ( z ) will not depend on the particular contour used to connect
z1

z1 and z2. The mirror image inverse is also true.

3 3
1 z1 z0
Hence, ∲ dz from z0 to z1 = − . Indeed, the integration of
c z2 3 3

1 −1 1 −1 −1
∫. z2
dz = z
+ c. In addition ∲c z 2 dz from z0 to z1 equals to z1 - z0 .

1
However, if one is considering the contour ∫ . z
dz = ln ( z ) + c. If this is a
1
contour from 1 to i, then ∲c z
dz = ln ( 1 ) − ln ( i ). It is no doubt that ln ( 1 ) = 0 but
1
in general, ln ( 1 )= 2nπi for n ∈ ℤ. Similarly, ln ( i ) = (2n+ 2 )πi for n ∈ ℤ. To sum

up: If the single-valued F(z) is the anti-derivative of f(z), both are well
defined around curve C with start & end points z0 & z1, then
∲c f(z) = F(z1) - F(z0)
Actually, ln ( z ) is NOT a single valued function but a multiple-valued one.
In reality [5], (N.B. One need to employ parametric substitution for the
2π
1
complex contour integration)∲|z|=r z
dz = I ∫ e0 d θ = 2πi, by [5], we have the
0

famous Cauchy Integral Formula:

1 f ( z)
f(z0) = ∲c dz
2iπ ( z − z0 )
=0 if the contour does NOT contain a singularity
or = 2iπ if the contour does contain a singularity
In other words, we may find out or verify all zeta zeros along the axis x = 0.5 by the
above method. But the main problem is that the computer calculated value equals to
zero does NOT imply there will be NO singularity nor non-trivial Zeta zeros. There
may be indeed some missing zeros. However, the problem may still be solved by [5]:
1. Fixable Poles;
2. Extension of the Laurent series;
(N.B. The proof is shown in [8])
3. Cauchy’s residue theorem
(N.B. The proof is shown in [5])
A Matlab simulation for calculating the non-trivial Zeta Zeros
In order to locate the approximate (or the elementary initial guess of
non-trivial zeta roots) position on the x = 0.5 axis, this author have first
written the following program segment in Matlab code [10]as below:
fun = @(z) 1./zeta(z);
m = 140;
for j = 40:m
K = 0.25.*j
L = 0.25.*(j + 1)
C = [0.25+K.*1i 0.25+L.*1i 0.75+L.*1i 0.75+K.*1i]
q2 = integral(fun,0.25+K.*1i,0.25+K.*1i,'Waypoints',C)
end
In practice, the main idea or component of the above program code is to loop
along the line x = 0.5 (in the middle surrounded) with each side’s width of 0.25. Then
the computed values are substituted back into the complex contour integral. Hence,
one may get the answer with values either equal to zero or a multiple of 2πI. Thus
according these two types of answer, one may classify the contour with either “NO
non-trivial zeros” (corresponds to a contour integral value equals to zero) – the
detailed proof will be provided in the next section or “non-trivial zeros” (corresponds
to a contour integral value equals a multiple of 2πI) – the Cauchy’s Residue Theorem.
 1
Indeed, by the application of analytic continuation for Re(z) > 0.5 to ( ) (N.B. One
ζ z
1
may easily to have a fact check that ( ) fullfils the requirements of analytic
ζ z
continuation for all z with Re(z) > 0.5 from either through the text-book or the
Internet), one may further extend the above two types of contour integral result into
the lower (negative imaginary) part of the positive real-negative complex plane
1
whenever Re(z) > 2 . In addition, there will be NO need to amend and repeat the

program code segment for the positive real Re(z) > 0.5 but negative (or lower)
complex plane to search for the conjugate pair of those non-trivial zeta zeros in the
upper part of the real-complex plane.
By the way, for the Re(z) < 0.5, the analytic continuation may NOT work for
1
the ( ) function. Thus, the best way to solve the Riemann Hypothesis problem (or a
ζ z
search for non-trivial zeta zeros) is to amend and modify the above posted Matlab
program segment code [11] for the real-complex plane located on the left hand side of
the real number line x = 0.5 such as the case below:
fun = @(z) 1./zeta(z);
m = 140;
n = 40;
for s = 1:n
O = 0.05.*s
P = 0.05.*(s+2)
for j = 40:m
K = O.*j
L = O.*(j + 1)
C = [O+K.*1i O+L.*1i P+L.*1i P+K.*1i]
q2 = integral(fun,O+K.*1i,O+K.*1i,'Waypoints',C)
end
end
 Technically, the main concept of the above program segment code is to first
loop over the x-coordinate(s) and then loop over the y-coordinates. Hence, with the
both pair of (x,y) double looping, the computer software U.S.A. Matlab will compute
my proposed complex contour integral formula’s answer for the code: O+K.*1i
O+L.*1i P+L.*1i P+K.*1i and runs according to the remaining real-complex plane {0
< Re(z) < 0.5 & Im(z) >0 }. By making some suitable adjustments (this will be left to
those interesting parties as it may NOT be a difficult task) to the above program
segment code for the Re(z) < 0, one may continue the non-trivial zeta zeros searching
process. The complex contour integral results as this author may find for 0 < Re(z) <
0.5 so far is zero which indicates there is NO non-trivial zeta zeros existing in the
above Re(z) range and hence with necessary amendments, one may also find the
complex contour integral result for the range {0 < Re(z) < 0.5 & Im(z) < 0 } or the
conjugate pair for {0 < Re(z) < 0.5 & Im(z) >0 }. Certainly, one may also make some
necessary amendments and modifications to my program segment code as posted
above for the lower (negative imaginary) real-complex plane (or the Re(z) < 0 &
Im(z) > 0 or Im(z) < 0), (this will be left to those interesting parties as it may NOT be
a difficult task) and thus look for any non-trivial zeta zeros if they actually exist.
A Proof for the Uniqueness of Riemann non-trivial Zeros

Suppose there are other n roots {s1, s2, …, sn} that lays on the Riemann non-
trivial zeros (say y1 & y2) and on the upper complex plane with the corresponding
negative complex conjugate at the line Re(z) = 0.5.
Then for any root s i ∈ set ( s1 , s 2 ,... , s n), the residue for ξ(s) at individual si is:
1
2πI |Res[ z − s z − s ... z − s z − y ... z − y , si]|
( 1 )( 2) ( n )( 1) ( n)

1
=2πI | lim
z→ z ( z − s 1 )( z − s 2 ) ... ( z − s n ) ( z − y 1 ) ... ( z − y n )
|
i

1
= 2πI z − s z − s ... z − s
( 1 )( 2) ( ( i − 1) ) ( z − s( i+1 ) ) ... ( z − sn) ( z − y1 ) ... ( z − y n )
. ≠ 0 which is a multiple of 2π.
Then for all of the extra roots that lay between the interval, say 0.5+y1i & 0.5+y2i, we
have:
ds dz
∲c ζ ( s ) = ∲c ( z − s )( z − s ) ... ( z − s )( z − y ) ... ( z − y )
1 2 n 1 n

= -2πI∑ Res
| [( 1
( z − s 1 )( z − s 2 ) ... ( z − s i ) ( z − s ( i +1) ) ... ( z − s n )( z − y 1) ... ( z − yn ) ) , s i at the complex plane
]|
1
|
= -2πI∑ s − s s − s ... s − s
( i 1 )( i 2 ) ( i ( i − 1) )( s i − s( i +1) ) ... ( s i − s n )( s i − y 1) ... ( s i − yn ) |
. ≠ 0 and is also a multiple of 2π.

Obviously, the above result is contradicting to the computed contour integral value
obtained from the U.S.A. Matlab™ liscened student version computation for the
interval between (0.5+Iy1, 0.5+Iy2) which is zero (suppose 0.5+Iy1, 0.5+Iy2 locate on
the upper complex plane while the negative plane is just by adding a negative sign to
make it positive or take the absolute value without loss of generality).
(N.B. The inverse of the Cauchy’s Residue Theorem may seem to be true in such
case. This is because if the reside of a fuction is equal to a multiple of π, then the
reader may finally prove that the fuction is also analytic.)
In addition, if there may be any residue cancellation for the conjugate pair of the
complex Riemann Zeta non-trivial roots, we may need to take the absolute value of
the residue in order to prevent such situation happens. Hence, the contradiction to
the computer program’s calaulation indicates the assumption of the extra roots {s1, s2,
…, sn} laying on the interval {0.5+Iy1 & 0.5+Iy2} of two consecutive Riemann roots
should be wrong. Thus, we may conclude that the known Riemann Zeta’s non-trivial
zeros are uniquely laying on the real number line x = 0.5. Or the gap between any
two consecutive Riemann Zeta’s non-trivial zeros contains NO other zeros.
Indeed, this author have already proved the present known Riemann Zeta non-
trivial zeros are unique.
An Intuitive Illusion for the Contour Complex Integral
For the common (ordinary/normal) differentiation and integration
over the real number line, we may establish the following derivative-
primitive relationship:
A derivative’s root (F’(x) = f(x) = 0, i.e. solve f(x) = 0 for x to find the roots of f(x))
is just its primitive function’s (i.e. F(x)) optimum (maximum/minimum) points (i.e.
substitute x’s previous computed values back into F(x) to find its optimum points).
Therefore according to the above derivative-primitive relationship, for those
computer calculated complex contour integral equal to zero, the roots of the complex
contour integral will then be equal to its primitive function’s optimum points. That is:
c +dI c +dI
ds
∫ ∲c ζ ( s ) ds = ( ∫ .f(s) ds)
.
a+ bI a+ bI

= [F(s1) – F(s2)]
= optimium (maximum/minimum) points.
But we are talking about the complex valued function and all of the integrals are
evaluated by complex numbers and indeed we cannot compare these complex
numbers’ dimensions. Thus, there will be NO maximum or minimum for these
complex valued numbers. We may only compare those complex values’ norm or
modulus in a numerical sense (i.e. real-valued numbers) but NOT the complex valued
number obtained from the Zeta function etc. Otherwise, the comparison is just an
interesting common mistakes or an intuitive illusion.
In reality, the aforementioned complex contour integeral Mean Value Theorem
may lead to both of the Maximum/Minimum Modululus Theorem or even the
Liouville’s Theorem [4] & [5] etc. However, one more thing that is interesting may
be the average modulus of such integral Mean Value Theorem, which gives us for any
consecutive interval of two non-trivial Zeta Riemann Zeros with the average value
h(z) on the circle | z-z0 | = r is given by [3]:
2Π

A(r) = ∫ h ( z 0 +r eΘ) d Θ
0
Then for z1 = z0 + r1eΘ & z2 = z0 + r2eΘ with the parametrization
1 2

i∗t
γ:[0, 2π] → ℂ , t |→ z0 + re r which is the arc length, we may have:
i ∗ t1 i∗ t2
1
[∫ ( ) dt − ∫ h ( z +r e ) dt ]
2Π 2Π
A(r1) - A(r2) = 2 Π ∗ r −r ( r 1 −r 2) h z 0 +r 1 e
r1
0 2
r2
( 1 2) 0 0

i∗t1 i∗t2
1 r r
) ∫[ ( )− h ( z +r e )] dt
2Π
= 2 Π ∗ r −r t 1 − t 2
( 1 2) 1 2 ( 0
h z 0 +r 1 e
r1
0 2
r2

1 2Π i∗ t
where A =
2 Π ∗ ( r) ∫
0
( )
h z 0 +r e r dt or the average value equals to zero [4].

This result may implies the existence of a Fourier transform over the complex number axis. This is
because one may imagine the appearance of the Zeta roots that are located between the normal
complex numbers. The situation is just like a sudden impulse for those Zeta zeros. Or even through
a suitable (similar to the mirror image kind of inverse) Laplace transform together with the delta
function associated equation/formula,
2
2 (k − 1) 2 ( k −1 ) 2
( 4 k Dirac ⁡( p ) − 4 Dirac ⁡( 1 , p ) +4 cot ⁡ ( k +1 )
( k Dirac ⁡( p ) − Dirac ⁡( 1 , p ) ) +3 cot ⁡
k +1
4
(
( k Dirac ⁡( p ) −2 k Di )
( k +1 )
2
2 ( k − 1)
(
+16 1+cot ⁡
k +1 ( ) ) ( k Dirac ⁡( p) − 2 k Dirac ⁡(1 , p )+ Dirac ⁡( 2 , p ))( 4 cot ⁡( 2 (kk+1−1) )+3 k +
2

6
( k +1 )
+4 ( −2 Dirac ⁡( 1 , p ) + Dirac ⁡( p ) ( 1+3 k ) ) cot ⁡ ( 2 (kk+1−1) ) =0
3
( k +1 )
(by using Canadian Maple-soft, Maple, Version 2022, Student Edition with paid license), one may
even establish the corresponding quantum circuit when further investigated from some suitable
software(s).
In practice, the aforementioned concept of considering the Riemann non-trivial zeros as a
sense of discontinuity (or holes) between those normal and continuous imaginary number along the
x = 0.5 may be extended to the topic of algebraic topology. In other words, one may apply the ideas
of both homology and homotopy (which may be indeed complementary to each other) together with
the corresponding residue theorem etc for a fixed closed chain in a complex plane [9], to find out all
of the Riemann non-trivial zeros along the axis x = 0.5. Such problem may then lead to the study of
the “stable Homotopy Around the Arf-Kervaire Invariant” etc. At the same time, there is an
additional application for both of the homology and homotopy in the algebraic topology in topic of
our structural biology. That say, for those infected virus with envelop(es) such as the SARS-CoV-2
one, if we can apply both of the homology and homotopy theories [6]to find out/identify all of holes
and have a fully investigation in all of the virus’s structural envelop(es) (or holes) through the
respective specially developed computer software, then we may develop the corresponding drugs
and hence block all of these virus’ envelop(es). The result is we can finally reduce or even eliminate
the spread of such enveloped virus or to be precise, the COVID-19 infection etc.

An Ingenious Design to Compute the Zeta Contour Integral

In order, to compute the complex (contour) integral in particular as (0.25+13*I,
0.25+13.25*I, 0.75+13.25*I, 0.75+13*I), one may get (by the Feynman’ Integration
techniques & the Partial Integration with Integration by Parts method [13] & [14]):
c +d ∗ I c +d ∗ I
1 ∂ ln ( zeta ( z ) )
∫ dz = ∫ dz
a+ b∗ I zeta ( z ) a+ b∗ I ∂ zeta ( z )
c +d ∗ I
1
= ∫ ∂ ln ( zeta ( z ) )
a+ b∗ I zeta' ( z )
c +d ∗ I
ln ( zeta ( z ) ) 1
= - ∫ ln ( zeta ( z ) ) ∂
( zeta ' ( z ) ) a+ b∗ I ( zeta ' ( z ) ) ( )
c +d ∗ I
ln ( zeta ( z ) ) c +d ∗ I zeta' ' ( z )
=[ ] - ∫ ln ( zeta ( z ) ) 2
dz
( zeta' ( z ) ) a+b ∗ I a+ b∗ I [ − zeta' ( z ) ]
c +d ∗ I
ln ( zeta ( z ) ) c +d ∗ I ln ( zeta ( z ) ) ∂ ln ( zeta ' ( z ) )
=[ ] a+b ∗ I + ∫ ∂ ( zeta' ( z ) )
( zeta' ( z ) ) a+ b∗ I [ zeta ' ( z ) ] ∂ ( zeta ' ( z ) )

ln ( zeta ( z ) ) c +d ∗ I ln ( zeta ( z ) ) 1 c +d ∗ I
=[ ] a+b ∗ I +[ zeta ' ( z ) ]
a+b ∗ I
-
( zeta' ( z ) ) ( zeta' ( z ) ) zeta ' z
( )
c +d ∗ I
ln ( zeta ( z ) )
∫ zeta' ( z ) ∂ 2
a+ b∗ I [ zeta' ( z ) ]
ln ( zeta ( z ) ) c +d ∗ I
=[( n ) ]
zeta' ( z ) a+b ∗ I
c +d ∗ I
1 ln ( zeta ( z ) ) c +d ∗ I
But by considering ∫ dz = n [ ] for the complex contour
a+ b∗ I zeta ( z ) ( zeta' ( z ) ) a+b ∗ I
integral in the case as (0.25+13*I, 0.25+13.25*I, 0.75+13.25*I, 0.75+13*I), one may
get the following:
ln ( zeta ( z ) ) 0.75 +13.25 ∗ I ln ( zeta ( z ) ) 0.25+13.25 ∗ I ln ( zeta ( z ) ) 0.25+13 ∗ I
[ ] 0.75+13 ∗ I + [ ]0.75+13.25 ∗ I + [ ]
( zeta' ( z ) ) ( zeta' ( z ) ) ( zeta' ( z ) ) 0.25 +13.25 ∗ I
 ln ( zeta ( z ) ) 0.75+13∗ I
+[ ] =0
( zeta' ( z ) ) 0.25+13∗ I
With respect to the above ingenious design for the complex contour integral, one may
get all of the integral evaluations are cancelled with each other and hence finally we
may get a zero. There may be a possibility that some zeta zeros is still inscribed.
Hence and obviously, by the above ingenious method, any zeros result calculated
may NOT imply there are NO non-trivial zeta zeros inscribed inside the contour like
the case (0.75+14.25*I, 0.75+14*I, 0.25+14.25*I, 0.25+14.25*I). Indeed, if there is a
non-zero contour integral and suppose {s1, s2, … si, …,sn} are all non-trivial zeros:

Case I: S are (or approaching to) non-trivial zeta roots Si,

lim . ln ( zeta ( s ) )
s→ si
( zeta ' ( s ) )
∑ ln ( s − si )
= lim .
s→ s i
∑ ( s − s1 ) ... ( s − s(i − 1) )( s − s(i+1) ) ... ( s− sn )
But if we express the logrithmic function in Taylor Series, then one may get:
2
s −1
ln (s-si) = [s-(si-1)] + s- ( i ) +… = [s-(si-1)] (approximately)
2

as lim
s→ s
.[ln (s - s +1)] → 1, when s - s → 0 or s → s , where s are zeta non-trivial roots.
i
i i i i

∞
ln ( n )
Also [12], Zeta’(s) = − ∑ s
n=2 n
ln ( 2 ) ln ( 3 )
=-{ s + s +…}
2 3
ln ( 2 )
=- s (approximately)
2
ln ( zeta ( s ) ) ln ( 2 )
Hence, lim
s→ s
. = 1 /[- s ]
i
( zeta ' ( s ) ) 2 i

si
2
=[- ]
ln ( 2 )
Case II: S are NOT non-trivial zeta roots,
For otherwise s ≠ si, where s is NOT a zeta root,

lim . ∑ ln ( s − si ) ∑ ln ( s − si )
=
s →s k ≠ si
∑ ( s − s1 ) ... ( s − s(i − 1) )( s − s(i+1) ) ... ( s− sn ) ∑ ( s − s1 ) ... ( s − s(i − 1) )( s − s(i+1) ) ... ( s− sn )

∑ ln ( s − si ) ln ( s n ) ( n ln ( s ) )
= ( n− 1 ) =
∑ ( s − s1 ) ... ( s − s(i − 1) )( s − s(i+1) ) ... ( s− sn ) ( n −1 ) s ( n −1 ) s ( n− 1)
1
( ln ( s ) )
= ( 1 − 1 )( )
(n) s( n− 1 )

=0 when n → ∞
( n+1 ) ( n− 1 ) ln ( s ) s ( n− 1 ) 1 1 1
(N.B. By Ratio test, one may get n 2 = (1 - 2 ) s = s < 1 and hence
( s ) n ln ( s ) n

converges when n → ∞ and s > 1)

Hence, for any contour integral without zeta zeros inscribed as shown above with the
interesting ingenious design, the limit will tends to zeros or the vice versa. Otherwise,
si
2
for the above non-zero limit ( = [- ] ), indeed by Residue Theorem, equals to a
ln ( 2 )
multiple of 2πi ) which does indicate that there is a zeta zero inscribed inside the
contour integral such as the case in the contour (0.75+14.25*I, 0.75+14*I,
0.25+14.25*I, 0.25+14.25*I) or the vice versa.
Conclusion
To conclude, in the present paper, this author have presented three methods to
find the zeta roots over the real value x = 0.5. These methods are:
I) Commercial Mathematics software for numerical simulation like U.S.A. Matlab &
Mathematic-a, Canada’s Maple Soft etc;
Initial elementary search for non-trivial Riemann Zeta zeros for a closed interval of
the real-complex plane,
II) Cauchy’s Residue Theorem;
Contour Integral gives two types of answer – zero or multiple of 2πI but one may
need to show the uniqueness or the non existence of the zeta roots between assumed
two conseuctive zeta root interval,
III) My well & ingenious designed method;
Contour Integral always gives you answer – zero and hence one may need to check
ln ( zeta ( z ) )
with the limit of at the contour interval to determine zeta zeros or not.
( zeta' ( z ) )
Actually, for the computer simulation method, the main idea is to employ double
“looping” algorithm. One will be used for looping along real axis while the other will
be employed for looping along the imaginary axis for the Re(z) < 0.5. For the second
Residue theorem, the main concept is that for any contour integral equal to zero does
NOT imply that there were NO zeta zeros laying on the closed interval between any
two non-trivial zeros. Thus, this author have already proved that as in the
aforementioned section that there is NO other non-trivial zeros between any non-
trivial zeta zeros’ interval (or the uniqueness). Finally, for the ingenious designed
ln ( zeta ( z ) )
method, this author have shown that the limit of will tend to ∞ for any zeta
( zeta ' ( z ) )
non-trivial zeros included in the range of a contour integral. On the other hand, the
ln ( zeta ( z ) )
limit of will tend to zeros when there is NO zeta non-trivial zeros included
( zeta ' ( z ) )
in the rang of a contour integral. All of these three methods work pretty well in
finding the non-trivial zeta roots (and hence establish the corresponding model
equation). On the other hand by a Fourier transformation to (the zeta roots model
equation) and hunt for the series of our prime number (with model equation) or the
vice versa. Technically, there is a duality relationship and hence the Fourier-Inverse
Quantum Fourier Transform between the momentum space and the position space for
our particles description in order to establish the quantum computer. May there also
be similar anologically properties existing between our present heatest university
depiction theories/models as this author have mentioned in [2] such that we can find
the knack to travel in our deep space for practicing. However, the above suggested
Fourier transform needs to be further proved in an abstracted way through the
experimental data obtained from our deep universe observatory appartus together
with the advances in the various mathematical methods etc. Therefore, the
aforementioned proof for such kind of universe modelings’ FT-IFT may be presently
out of the scope in my research.
Last but NOT least, this author have combined the above three methods for
searching, finnering and checking the non-trivial zeta zeros without a missing by the
following algorithm:

Step 1: Use the computer software with some suitable program codes for an
elementary search of feasible non-trivial zeta values among the closed real-complex
plane interval – Method Matlab Simulation for searching zeta zeros;

Step 2: Substitute back the values laying in the contour interval for zeta as found in
ln ( zeta ( z ) )
Step 1 into the limit of in order to adjust the answer in a finer and accurate
( zeta ' ( z ) )
way (just like the case of Newton’s method etc) with more decimal digitals – Method
Ingenious Design for finer the zeta zero’s values;

Step 3: Employ the Cauchy Residue Theorem for a check and hence confirm the
previous found non-trivial zeta roots’ uniqueness without any zeta zeros laying in
between the two consecutive zeta roots – Method Cauchy’s Residue for checking
those already found zeta zeros.
Reference:
[1] Lam Kai Shun (2023) A Full and Detailed Proof for the Riemann Hypothesis & the Simple
Inductive proof of Goldbach’s Conjecture, International Journal of Mathematics and Statistics
Studies, Vol.11, No.3, pp.1-10
[2] Analytic Continuation and the Zeta Function, Zeta-math, https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=CjSKmcWRFzE
[3] Lars V. Ahlfors, 1979, Complex Analysis – An Introduction to the Theory of Analytic Functions
of One Complex Variable, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
[4] Mathematics Stack Exchange, June, 2017
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2243917/why-does-the-integral-for-the-average-value-
of-a-complex-function-on-a-circle-no
[5] Wunsch, A. D. (1994). Complex variables with applications (2nd ed.). , p. 162-164, p.170, p.180-

182, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

[6] K.S.Lam, 2021, Special issue AJMS Jul-Sep 2021 Combined 20211223 V1, Asian Journal of
Mathematical Science, India.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357321899_Special_issue_AJMS_Jul-Sep_2021_Combined_20211223_V1

[7] Complex Integration and Finding Zeros of the Zeta Function, Zeta-math,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKqC5uHjE4g
[8] William, T.S. 2006, 2008, Complex Analysis with Mathematica, Cambridge University Press,
p.278-p.282, England.
[9] William, F. 1995, Algebraic Topology – A First Course, Chapter 9, Springer Publication
[10] MathWorks, Help Centre, Complex Line Integral,
https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/math/complex-line-integrals.html
[11] MathWorks, MatLab Answer, How can I create a nested loop?
https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/393736-how-can-i-create-a-nested-loop
[12] Proof WiKi, Derivative of Riemann Zeta Function
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Derivative_of_Riemann_Zeta_Function
[13] CliffsNotes, Partial Integration, https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/differential-
equations/review-and-introduction/partial-integration
[14] Dr. Trefor Bazett, The Dirichlet Integral is destroyed by Feynmann’s Trick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZccxuOpb4k