Noncommutative geometry

Connes (1999, 2000) has described a relationship between the Riemann hypothesis and
noncommutative geometry, and showed that a suitable analog of the Selberg trace
formula for the action of the idèle class group on the adèle class space would
imply the Riemann hypothesis. Some of these ideas are elaborated in Lapidus (2008).

Hilbert spaces of entire functions

Louis de Branges (1992) showed that the Riemann hypothesis would follow from a
positivity condition on a certain Hilbert space of entire functions. However Conrey
& Li (2000) showed that the necessary positivity conditions are not satisfied.
Despite this obstacle, de Branges has continued to work on an attempted proof of
the Riemann hypothesis along the same lines, but this has not been widely accepted
by other mathematicians.[27]

Quasicrystals
The Riemann hypothesis implies that the zeros of the zeta function form a
quasicrystal, a distribution with discrete support whose Fourier transform also has
discrete support. Dyson (2009) suggested trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis by
classifying, or at least studying, 1-dimensional quasicrystals.

Arithmetic zeta functions of models of elliptic curves over number fields

When one goes from geometric dimension one, e.g. an algebraic number field, to
geometric dimension two, e.g. a regular model of an elliptic curve over a number
field, the two-dimensional part of the generalized Riemann hypothesis for the
arithmetic zeta function of the model deals with the poles of the zeta function. In
dimension one the study of the zeta integral in Tate's thesis does not lead to new
important information on the Riemann hypothesis. Contrary to this, in dimension two
work of Ivan Fesenko on two-dimensional generalisation of Tate's thesis includes an
integral representation of a zeta integral closely related to the zeta function. In
this new situation, not possible in dimension one, the poles of the zeta function
can be studied via the zeta integral and associated adele groups. Related
conjecture of Fesenko (2010) on the positivity of the fourth derivative of a
boundary function associated to the zeta integral essentially implies the pole part
of the generalized Riemann hypothesis. Suzuki (2011) proved that the latter,
together with some technical assumptions, implies Fesenko's conjecture.

Multiple zeta functions

Deligne's proof of the Riemann hypothesis over finite fields used the zeta
functions of product varieties, whose zeros and poles correspond to sums of zeros
and poles of the original zeta function, in order to bound the real parts of the
zeros of the original zeta function. By analogy, Kurokawa (1992) introduced
multiple zeta functions whose zeros and poles correspond to sums of zeros and poles
of the Riemann zeta function. To make the series converge he restricted to sums of
zeros or poles all with non-negative imaginary part. So far, the known bounds on
the zeros and poles of the multiple zeta functions are not strong enough to give
useful estimates for the zeros of the Riemann zeta function.

Location of the zeros

Number of zeros
The functional equation combined with the argument principle implies that the
number of zeros of the zeta function with imaginary part between 0 and T is given
by

N
(
T
)
=
1
π
A
r
g
⁡
(
ξ
(
s
)
)
=
1
π
A
r
g
⁡
(
Γ
(
s
2
)
π
−
s
2
ζ
(
s
)
s
(
s
−
1
)
/
2
)
{\displaystyle N(T)={\frac {1}{\pi }}\mathop {\mathrm {Arg} } (\xi (s))={\frac {1}
{\pi }}\mathop {\mathrm {Arg} } (\Gamma ({\tfrac {s}{2}})\pi ^{-{\frac {s}{2}}}\
zeta (s)s(s-1)/2)}
for s = 1/2 + iT, where the argument is defined by varying it continuously along
the line with Im(s) = T, starting with argument 0 at ∞ + iT. This is the sum of a
large but well understood term

1
π
A
r
g
⁡
(
Γ
(
s
2
)
π
−
s
/
2
s
(
s
−
1
)
/
2
)
=
T
2
π
log
⁡
T
2
π
−
T
2
π
+
7
/
8
+
O
(
1
/
T
)
{\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\pi }}\mathop {\mathrm {Arg} } (\Gamma ({\tfrac {s}{2}})\
pi ^{-s/2}s(s-1)/2)={\frac {T}{2\pi }}\log {\frac {T}{2\pi }}-{\frac {T}{2\pi }}
+7/8+O(1/T)}
and a small but rather mysterious term

S
(
T
)
=
1
π
A
r
g
⁡
(
ζ
(
1
/
2
+
i
T
)
)
=
O
(
log
⁡
T
)
.
{\displaystyle S(T)={\frac {1}{\pi }}\mathop {\mathrm {Arg} } (\zeta (1/2+iT))=O(\
log T).}
So the density of zeros with imaginary part near T is about log(T)/(2π), and the
function S describes the small deviations from this. The function S(t) jumps by 1
at each zero of the zeta function, and for t ≥ 8 it decreases monotonically between
zeros with derivative close to −log t.

Trudgian (2014) proved that, if T > e, then

|
N
(
T
)
−
T
2
π
log
⁡
T
2
π
e
|
≤
0.112
log
⁡
T
+
0.278
log
⁡
log
⁡
T
+
3.385
+
0.2
T
{\displaystyle |N(T)-{\frac {T}{2\pi }}\log {\frac {T}{2\pi e}}|\leq 0.112\log
T+0.278\log \log T+3.385+{\frac {0.2}{T}}}.
Karatsuba (1996) proved that every interval (T, T + H] for
H
≥
T
27
82
+
ε
{\displaystyle H\geq T^{{\frac {27}{82}}+\varepsilon }} contains at least

H
(
log
⁡
T
)
1
3
e
−
c
log
⁡
log
⁡
T
{\displaystyle H(\log T)^{\frac {1}{3}}e^{-c{\sqrt {\log \log T}}}}
points where the function S(t) changes sign.

Selberg (1946) showed that the average moments of even powers of S are given by

∫
0
T
|
S
(
t
)
|
2
k
d
t
=
(
2
k
)
!
k
!
(
2
π
)
2
k
T
(
log
⁡
log
⁡
T
)
k
+
O
(
T
(
log
⁡
log
⁡
T
)
k
−
1
/
2
)
.
{\displaystyle \int _{0}^{T}|S(t)|^{2k}dt={\frac {(2k)!}{k!(2\pi )^{2k}}}T(\log \
log T)^{k}+O(T(\log \log T)^{k-1/2}).}
This suggests that S(T)/(log log T)1/2 resembles a Gaussian random variable with
mean 0 and variance 2π2 (Ghosh (1983) proved this fact). In particular |S(T)| is
usually somewhere around (log log T)1/2, but occasionally much larger. The exact
order of growth of S(T) is not known. There has been no unconditional improvement
to Riemann's original bound S(T) = O(log T), though the Riemann hypothesis implies
the slightly smaller bound S(T) = O(log T/log log T).[13] The true order of
magnitude may be somewhat less than this, as random functions with the same
distribution as S(T) tend to have growth of order about log(T)1/2. In the other
direction it cannot be too small: Selberg (1946) showed that S(T) ≠ o((log
T)1/3/(log log T)7/3), and assuming the Riemann hypothesis Montgomery showed that
S(T) ≠ o((log T)1/2/(log log T)1/2).

Numerical calculations confirm that S grows very slowly: |S(T)| < 1 for T < 280, |
S(T)| < 2 for T < 6800000, and the largest value of |S(T)| found so far is not much
larger than 3.[28]

Riemann's estimate S(T) = O(log T) implies that the gaps between zeros are bounded,
and Littlewood improved this slightly, showing that the gaps between their
imaginary parts tend to 0.

Theorem of Hadamard and de la Vallée-Poussin

Hadamard (1896) and de la Vallée-Poussin (1896) independently proved that no zeros
could lie on the line Re(s) = 1. Together with the functional equation and the fact
that there are no zeros with real part greater than 1, this showed that all non-
trivial zeros must lie in the interior of the critical strip 0 < Re(s) < 1. This
was a key step in their first proofs of the prime number theorem.

Both the original proofs that the zeta function has no zeros with real part 1 are
similar, and depend on showing that if ζ(1 + it) vanishes, then ζ(1 + 2it) is
singular, which is not possible. One way of doing this is by using the inequality
|
ζ
(
σ
)
3
ζ
(
σ
+
i
t
)
4
ζ
(
σ
+
2
i
t
)
|
≥
1
{\displaystyle |\zeta (\sigma )^{3}\zeta (\sigma +it)^{4}\zeta (\sigma +2it)|\geq
1}
for σ > 1, t real, and looking at the limit as σ → 1. This inequality follows by
taking the real part of the log of the Euler product to see that

|
ζ
(
σ
+
i
t
)
|
=
exp
⁡
ℜ
∑
p
n
p
−
n
(
σ
+
i
t
)
n
=
exp
⁡
∑
p
n
p
−
n
σ
cos
⁡
(
t
log
⁡
p
n
)
n
,
{\displaystyle |\zeta (\sigma +it)|=\exp \Re \sum _{p^{n}}{\frac {p^{-n(\sigma
+it)}}{n}}=\exp \sum _{p^{n}}{\frac {p^{-n\sigma }\cos(t\log p^{n})}{n}},}
where the sum is over all prime powers pn, so that

|
ζ
(
σ
)
3
ζ
(
σ
+
i
t
)
4
ζ
(
σ
+
2
i
t
)
|
=
exp
⁡
∑
p
n
p
−
n
σ
3
+
4
cos
⁡
(
t
log
⁡
p
n
)
+
cos
⁡
(
2
t
log
⁡
p
n
)
n
{\displaystyle |\zeta (\sigma )^{3}\zeta (\sigma +it)^{4}\zeta (\sigma +2it)|=\
exp \sum _{p^{n}}p^{-n\sigma }{\frac {3+4\cos(t\log p^{n})+\cos(2t\log p^{n})}{n}}}
which is at least 1 because all the terms in the sum are positive, due to the
inequality

3
+
4
cos
⁡
(
θ
)
+
cos
⁡
(
2
θ
)
=
2
(
1
+
cos
⁡
(
θ
)
)
2
≥
0.
{\displaystyle 3+4\cos(\theta )+\cos(2\theta )=2(1+\cos(\theta ))^{2}\geq 0.}
Zero-free regions
The most extensive computer search by Platt and Trudgian[17] for counterexamples of
the Riemann hypothesis has verified it for |t| ≤ 3.0001753328×1012. Beyond that
zero-free regions are known as inequalities concerning σ + i t, which can be
zeroes. The oldest version is from De la Vallée-Poussin (1899–1900), who proved
there is a region without zeroes that satisfies 1 − σ ≥
C
/
log(t)
for some positive constant C. In other words, zeros cannot be too close to the
line σ = 1: there is a zero-free region close to this line. This has been enlarged
by several authors using methods such as Vinogradov's mean-value theorem.

The most recent paper[29] by Mossinghoff, Trudgian and Yang is from December 2022
and provides four zero-free regions that improved the previous results of Kevin
Ford from 2002, Mossinghoff and Trudgian themselves from 2015 and Pace Nielsen's
slight improvement of Ford from October 2022:

σ
≥
1
−
1
5.558691
log
⁡
|
t
|
{\displaystyle \sigma \geq 1-{\frac {1}{5.558691\log |t|}}} whenever
|
t
|
≥
2
{\displaystyle |t|\geq 2},
σ
≥
1
−
1
55.241
(
log
⁡
|
t
|
)
2
/
3
(
log
⁡
log
⁡
|
t
|
)
1
/
3
{\displaystyle \sigma \geq 1-{\frac {1}{55.241(\log {|t|})^{2/3}(\log {\log {|
t|}})^{1/3}}}} whenever
|
t
|
≥
3
{\displaystyle |t|\geq 3} (largest known region in the bound
3.0001753328
⋅
10
12
≤
|
t
|
≤
exp
⁡
(
64.1
)
≈
6.89
⋅
10
27
{\displaystyle 3.0001753328\cdot 10^{12}\leq |t|\leq \exp(64.1)\approx 6.89\cdot
10^{27}}),
σ
≥
1
−
0.04962
−
0.0196
1.15
+
log
⁡
3
+
1
6
log
⁡
t
+
log
⁡
log
⁡
t
0.685
+
log
⁡
3
+
1
6
log
⁡
t
+
1.155
⋅
log
⁡
log
⁡
t
{\displaystyle \sigma \geq 1-{\frac {0.04962-{\frac {0.0196}{1.15+\log 3+{\frac {1}
{6}}\log t+\log \log t}}}{0.685+\log 3+{\frac {1}{6}}\log t+1.155\cdot \log \log
t}}} whenever
|
t
|
≥
1.88
⋅
10
14
{\displaystyle |t|\geq 1.88\cdot 10^{14}} (largest known region in the bound
exp
⁡
(
64.1
)
≤
|
t
|
≤
exp
⁡
(
1000
)
≈
1.97
⋅
10
434
{\displaystyle \exp(64.1)\leq |t|\leq \exp(1000)\approx 1.97\cdot 10^{434}}) and
σ
≥
1
−
0.05035
27
164
(
log
⁡
|
t
|
)
+
7.096
+
0.0349
(
27
164
(
log
⁡
|
t
|
)
+
7.096
)
2
{\displaystyle \sigma \geq 1-{\frac {0.05035}{{\frac {27}{164}}(\log {|t|})+7.096}}
+{\frac {0.0349}{({\frac {27}{164}}(\log {|t|})+7.096)^{2}}}} whenever
|
t
|
≥
exp
⁡
(
1000
)
{\displaystyle |t|\geq \exp(1000)} (largest known region in its own bound)
The paper also presents an improvement to the second zero-free region, whose bounds
are unknown on account of
|
t
|
{\displaystyle |t|} being merely assumed to be "sufficiently large" to fulfill the
requirements of the paper's proof. This region is

σ
≥
1
−
1
48.1588
(
log
⁡
|
t
|
)
2
/
3
(
log
⁡
log
⁡
|
t
|
)
1
/
3
{\displaystyle \sigma \geq 1-{\frac {1}{48.1588(\log {|t|})^{2/3}(\log {\log {|
t|}})^{1/3}}}}.
Zeros on the critica