# Number Theory

This section requires Set Theory and Nonstandard Analysis. Let $$m, n \in {}^{\omega}\mathbb{N}$$ and $$k \in \mathbb{N}$$.

Prime number theorem: For $$\pi(x) := |\{p \in {}^{\omega}{\mathbb{P}} : p \le x \in {}^{\omega}{\mathbb{R}}\}|$$ holds $$\pi(\omega) = \widehat{{_e}\omega}\omega + \mathcal{O}({_e}\omega\sqrt{\omega})$$.

Proof: In the sieve of Eratosthenes, the number of prime numbers decreases almost regularly. From intervals of fix length $$y \in {}^{\omega}{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}, \hat{2}y$$ set-2-tuples of prime numbers are formed such that the first interval has the unchanged representative prime number density and the second interval is empty, then the interval with the second most prime number density is followed by the second least one etc.

For induction basis $$n = 2$$ resp. 3, the induction hypothesis is that the first interval contains $$x_n/{_e}x_n$$ primes for $$n \in {}^{\omega}{\mathbb{N}_{\ge2}}$$ and arbitrary $$x_4 \in [2, 4[$$. Then the induction step from $$x_n$$ to $$x_n^2$$ by considering the prime gaps of prime $$p\# /q + 1$$ for $$p, q \in {}^{\omega}\mathbb{P}$$ proves that there are $$\pi(x_n^2) = \pi(x_n) x_n/2$$ primes only from $$\pi(x_n) = x_n/{_e}x_n$$. The average distance between the primes is $${_e}x_n$$ and the maximal $$x_n^2$$ to $$x_n$$ behaves like $$\omega$$ to $$\sqrt{\omega}.\square$$

Remark: Replacing the number 2 by $$m \in {}^{\omega }{\mathbb{N}_{>2}}$$ for $$\hat{m}{y}^{\acute{m}}$$ set-$$m$$-tuples gives the same result. The narrowly valid correction term $$\mathcal{O}({_e}\omega\sqrt{\omega})$$ disproves Legendre’s conjecture. The sieve of Eratosthenes and induction show by the Dirichlet prime number theorem both infinitely many prime and composite Mersenne numbers $$M_n := 2^n – 1$$ for $$n \in {}^{\omega}{\mathbb{N}^{*}}$$ 1Scheid, Harald: Zahlentheorie; 1. Aufl.; 1991; Bibliographisches Institut; Mannheim, p. 174 f..

Bounding theorem for $$\omega$$-transcendental numbers: Every $$z \in \mathbb{C}^{*}$$ such that $$|z| \notin [\hat{\omega}, \omega]$$ is automatically $$\omega$$-transcendental.

Proof: In a polynomial or series equation, set $${a}_{m} = 1$$ and $${a}_{k} = -{\acute{\omega}}$$ for $$k < m$$, then the real case follows from the geometric series formula after taking the reciprocal. The exact limit value can be found by replacing $$\omega$$ by $${\omega}(m) = \omega – \acute{\omega}/{\omega(m)}^{m}$$. The complex case is solved by setting i.a. $$x = \grave{y}\omega$$ for $$y \in i{}^{\omega }{\mathbb{R}^{*}}.\square$$

Coefficient theorem for $$\omega$$-transcendental numbers: Every normalised irreducible polynomial and series such that at least one $${a}_{k} \notin {}^{\omega }\mathbb{Z}$$ only has $$\omega$$-transcendental zeros.

Proof: The zeros of normalised irreducible polynomials and series are pairwise distinct and uniquely determined. Since they are not $$\omega$$-algebraic, they must be $$\omega$$-transcendental.$$\square$$

Definition: The notation for $$m$$-algebraic numbers is $${(m, {a}_{k-1}, {a}_{k-2}, …, {a}_{1}, {a}_{0}; r, i; \#n, \&q; v, p)}_{s}$$. Here $$r$$ takes precedence over $$i$$ and $$r = i = {a}_{0} = 0$$ represents the number 0. The numerical value $$v$$ has the precision $$p$$. For $$r \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}^{*} (-{}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}^{*})$$ exists the $$r$$-th largest ($$|r|$$-th smallest) zero with real part > 0 (< 0), where $$r = 0, i \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}^{*} (-{}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}^{*})$$ denotes a non-real zero with the $$i$$-th largest ($$|i|$$-th smallest) imaginary part > 0 (< 0), and the other algebraic numbers have analogous notations. The value $$\#n$$ gives the quantity $$n \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}^{*}$$ of zeros. When at least one $${a}_{j}$$ is taken as a variable, $$\&q$$ gives the number $$q \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}$$ of repeated zeros. All $$k$$-minimal polynomials have the sign < as specification $$s$$, all $$k$$-minimal series have >.$$\triangle$$

Remark: Not distinguishing between repeated zeros allows the zeros of $$k$$-polynomials or $$k$$-series with integer or rational coefficients to be endowed with a strict total ordering. The information $$r, i, \#n, \&q, v, p$$, and $$s$$ can optionally be omitted as e.g. for rational numbers. The $$(\nu+2)$$-tuple $$(0, …, 0, {a}_{k-1}, …, {a}_{0}; r, i{)}_{<}$$ where the $${a}_{j}$$ are finite natural numbers, gives a strict lexical well-ordering of the algebraic numbers.

Examples: The numbers $$(\nu; 1, 0, 0, 0, -1{)}_{>}$$ are $$1, -1, i$$, and $$-i$$. The golden ratio $$\Phi := (1 + \sqrt{5})/2$$ may be written as $$(\nu; 1, -1, -1; 1, 0; 1.618033, {10}^{-6}{)}_{<}$$. The number $$0.\overline{1} = 0.1…1$$ with $$\omega$$ ones after the point is mid-finite and distinct from the number $$\hat{9}$$, since 9 $$\times \; 0,\overline{1} = 0.9…9 = 1 – {10}^{-\omega} \ne 1$$. It is therefore $$\omega$$-transcendental and should therefore be written as ($$\omega, 9 \times {10}^{\omega}, 1 – {10}^{\omega})$$.

Remark: Let $$m \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}$$ be the maximum polynomial degree and $$n \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}$$ the maximum absolute value that the integer coefficients $${a}_{k}$$ of the polynomials $${a}_{m}{x}^{m} + {a}_{\acute{m}}{x}^{\acute{m}} + … + {a}_{1}x + {a}_{0}$$ with $$k \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}_{\le m}$$ can take. This makes sense due to the symmetry of the $${a}_{k}$$. The number of algebraic numbers is the number of zeros of the normalised irreducible polynomials specified by the conditions: greatest common divisor gcd of the coefficients is equal to 1, $${a}_{m} > 0$$, and $${a}_{0} \ne 0$$.

Counting theorem for algebraic numbers: The number $$\mathbb{A}(m, n)$$ of algebraic numbers of polynomial or series degree $$m$$ and thus in general for the Riemann zeta function $$\zeta$$ asymptotically satisfies the equation$\mathbb{A}(m, n) = \widehat{\zeta(\grave{m})}\,z(m){{(2n+1)}^{m}}\left( n+\mathcal{O}({_e}n) \right),$where $$z(m)$$ is the average number of zeros of a polynomial or series.

Proof: The case $$m = 1$$ requires2loc. cit., p. 323 and 330 the error term $$\mathcal{O}({_e}n n)$$ and represents the number $$4\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n}{\varphi (k)}-1$$ by the $$\varphi$$-function. For $$m > 1$$, the divisibility conditions neither change the error term $$\mathcal{O}({_e}n)$$ nor the leading term. Polynomials or series such that gcd$$({a}_{0}, {a}_{1}, …, {a}_{m}) \ne 1$$ are excluded by $$1/\zeta(\grave{m})$$: The latter is given by taking the product over the prime numbers $$p$$ of all $$(1 – {p}^{-\grave{m}})$$ absorbing here multiples of $$p$$ and representing sums of geometric series.$$\square$$

Remark: In the complex case, by the fundamental theorem of algebra (see Nonstandard Analysis), $$z(m) = m$$. In the real case, $$z(m)$$ is asymptotically equal to $$\hat{\iota}\;{_e}m + \mathcal{O}(1)$$3Kac, Mark: On the Average Number of Real Roots of a Random Algebraic Equation; Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 49 (4); 1943; 314 – 320.

Examples: For $$m = n = \acute{\nu} =: e^{\mathrm{\sigma}} =: \acute{\kappa}/2$$, it is true that $$|{}^{\nu}\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{R}}| = \frac{\mathrm{\sigma}}{\mathrm{\iota}}{\mathrm{\kappa}^{\acute{\nu}}}\left(\nu+\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{\sigma})\right)$$ and $$|{}^{\nu}\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{C}}| = {\frac{1}{2}} {\kappa}^\nu\left(\nu+\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{\sigma})\right)$$.

Approximation theorem for $$\omega$$-algebraic numbers: The average asymptotic error to approximate every real $$\omega$$-algebraic number of degree $$n > 1$$ by a real $$\omega$$-algebraic number of degree $$m < n$$ is $${|{}^{\omega }\mathbb{Z}|}^{-m} \widehat{{_e}\omega} \zeta(\grave{m}) \iota$$.

Proof: The number of $$\omega$$-algebraic numbers approximately evenly distributed between fixed limits increases in $${}^{\omega}{\mathbb{R}}$$ by a factor of approximately $$|{}^{\omega }\mathbb{Z}|$$ per degree. The error corresponds to the distance between $$\omega$$-algebraic numbers. The non-real $$\omega$$-algebraic numbers are less dense.$$\square$$

Conclusion: Two distinct real $$\omega$$-algebraic numbers have an average distance of at least $${|{}^{\omega}\mathbb{Z}|}^{-\acute{\omega}} \widehat{{_e}\omega} \pi$$. Determining this minimum distance exactly requires an infinite non-linear non-convex optimisation problem to be solved. Therefore, the $$\nu$$-algebraic numbers have an approximate order of $$\mathcal{O}(\nu)$$. This disproves Roth’s theorem, which does not prove more than the (trivial) minimum distance between two rational numbers. Thus, the abc conjecture is wrong.

Theorem: The maximum distance between two neighbouring real $$\omega$$-algebraic numbers is $$\Omega/\acute{\omega}$$ for the $$\omega$$-transcendental omega constant $$\Omega = e^{-\Omega} = W(1)$$ (see below Lambert-W function).

Proof: The distance between two real $$\omega$$-algebraic numbers is largest around the points $$\pm 1$$. The number 1 may be approximated by an real $$\omega$$-algebraic $$x$$ that satisfies the polynomial or series equation $$\acute{x}x^{\acute{m}}\acute{\omega} = 1$$ for $$x > 1$$ or $$x^m = -\acute{x}\acute{\omega}$$ for $$x < 1.\square$$

Examples: For $$m = 1$$, there are $$3(\hat{\iota}n)^{2}+\mathcal{O}({_e}n n)$$ rational solutions. For $$m = 2$$, $$\frac{9}{2}{n}^{3}/\zeta(3) + \mathcal{O}({_e}n{n}^{2})$$ real solutions arise, since a real polynomial of degree 2 has two real zeros with probability $${\frac{9}{16}}$$ by the quadratic formula. For $${a}_{m} = 1$$, there are $$z(m){(2n+1)}^{\acute{m}}(2n + \mathcal{O}({_e}n))$$ algebraic integer solutions.

Theorem: For every $$z \in \mathbb{Q}+ i\mathbb{Q}$$ such that $$|z| \notin \{0, 1\}$$, the geometric series is $$\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\omega}{{{z}^{n}}}=({{z}^{\grave{\omega}}} – 1)/\acute{z} \in {}^{\omega }\mathbb{T}_{\mathbb{C}}$$.

Proof: The modulus of either the numerator or denominator $${z}^{\grave{\omega}}$$ is $$>{2}^{\omega/2}.\square$$

Theorem: Euler’s number $$e$$ is $$\omega$$-transcendental.

Proof: If the exponential series is accepted as a representation of $$e$$, it follows that $$e = (k{\omega} + 1)/\omega!$$ for $$k > \omega$$. Therefore, the numerator and the denominator of this fraction must be $$> \omega$$, since neither $$\omega$$ nor a prime divisor of $$k$$ in the numerator simplifies with $$\omega!$$. However, if the representation $${(1 + \hat{\omega})}^{\omega}$$ is accepted for $$e$$, the claim is trivial. Note that these two representations give different numbers.$$\square$$

The greatest-prime criterion (GPC) for $$\omega$$-transcendental numbers: If a real number may be represented as an irreducible fraction $$\widehat{ap}b \pm \hat{s}t$$, where $$a, b, s$$, and $$t$$ are natural numbers, $$abst \ne 0$$, $$a + s > 2$$, and the (second-)greatest prime number $$p \in {}^{\omega }\mathbb{P}, p \nmid b$$ and $$p \nmid s$$, then $$r$$ is $$\omega$$-transcendental.

Proof: The denominator $$\widehat{ap s} (bs \pm apt)$$ is $$\ge 2p \ge 2\omega – \mathcal{O}({_e}\omega\sqrt{\omega}) > \omega$$ by the prime number theorem.$$\square$$

Theorem: Pi $$\pi$$ is $$\omega$$-transcendental.

Proof: This follows from its Wallis product representation, or its product representation using the gamma function with value $$-\hat{2}$$, provided that these representations are accepted. Alternatively, the GPC can be applied to the Leibniz series, or the Taylor series of arcsin$$(x)$$ at $$x = 1$$.$$\square$$

Theorem: The constants of $$({C}_{Artin})$$, Baxter $$({C}^{2})$$, Chaitin $$({\Omega}_{F})$$, Champernowne $$({C}_{10})$$, Copeland-Erdős $$({C}_{CE})$$, Erdős-Borwein $$(E)$$, Feller-Tornier $$({C}_{FT})$$, Flajolet and Richmond $$(Q)$$, Glaisher-Kinkelin $$(A)$$, Heath-Brown-Moroz $$({C}_{HBM})$$, Landau-Ramanujan $$(K)$$, Liouville $$({£}_{Li})$$, Murata $$({C}_{M})$$, Pell $$({P}_{Pell})$$, Prouhet-Thue-Morse $$({C}_{PTM})$$, Sarnak $$({C}_{sa})$$ and Stephen $$({C}_{S})$$ as well as the Euler resp. Landau totient constant $$(ET$$ resp. $$LT)$$, the twin prime constant $$({C}_{2})$$ and the carefree constants $$({K}_{1}, {K}_{2}$$ and $${K}_{3})$$ are $$\omega$$-transcendental, since a certain power of a prime cannot be removed from numerator or denominator by simplifying.$$\square$$

Remark: The claim for $${C}_{CE}$$ clearly also holds for every base from $${}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}^{*}$$.

Theorem: The constants of Catalan $$(G)$$, Gieseking $$(\pi \, {_e}\beta)$$, Smarandache $$({S}_{1})$$ and Taniguchi $$({C}_{T})$$ are $$\omega$$-transcendental because of the GPC.$$\square$$

Theorem: For $$x \in {}^{\omega }{\mathbb{R}}$$, let be $$s(x) := \sum\limits_{n=1}^{\omega}{\hat{n}{{x}^{n}}}$$ and $$\gamma := s(1) – {_e}\omega = \int\limits_{1}^{\omega}{\left( \widehat{\left\lfloor x \right\rfloor} – \hat{x} \right)dx}$$ Euler’s constant, where rearranging shows $$\gamma \in \; ]0, 1[$$. If $${_e}\omega = s(\hat{2})\;{_2}\omega$$ is accepted, $$\gamma \in {}^{\omega }\mathbb{T}_{\mathbb{R}}$$ is true with a precision of $$\mathcal{O}({2}^{-\omega}\hat{\omega}\;{_e}\omega)$$.

Proof: The (exact) integration of the geometric series (see Nonstandard Analysis) yields $$-{_e}(-\acute{x}) = s(x) + \mathcal{O}(\hat{\omega}{x}^{\grave{\omega}}/\acute{x}) + t(x)dx$$ for $$x \in [-1, 1 – \hat{\nu}]$$ and $$t(x) \in {}^{\omega }{\mathbb{R}}$$ such that $$|t(x)| < {\omega}$$. After applying Fermat’s little theorem to the numerator of $$\hat{p}(1 – 2^{-p}\,{_2}\omega)$$ for $$p = \max\, {}^{\omega}\mathbb{P}$$, the GPC yields the claim.$$\square$$

Remark: If $$\omega$$ is replaced by an arbitrary $$k \in {}^{\omega }\mathbb{N}_{\ge\omega/2}$$, the preceding proof is barely more difficult.

Theorem: If the gamma function is defined by $$\Gamma(z) := k! \, {k}^{z}/(z\grave{z} … (z + k))$$ such that $$k = {\omega}^2!$$ is true, $$\Gamma(z) \in \mathbb{T}_{\mathbb{R}}$$ for all $$z \in R := {}^{\omega}\mathbb{Q} \setminus -{}^{\omega }\mathbb{N}$$ and not too extensive rational supersets of $$R$$.

Proof: There is at least one $$n$$ for $$x := \Gamma(z), a_n \in \mathbb{Z}$$ and $$\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\omega}{a_n{{x}^{n}}} = 0$$ such that $$|a_n| > \omega.\square$$

Remark: The truth of $$\Gamma(n + 1) = n!$$ for $$n \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}$$ makes the definition before worth reconsidering.

Theorem: The BBP series $$\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\omega}{p(n)\widehat{q(n){{b}^{n}}}}$$ for $$b \in {}^{\omega }\mathbb{N}_{\ge 2}$$ and integer polynomials resp. series $$p$$ and $$q \in {}^{\omega }\mathbb{Z}$$ with $$q(n) \ne 0$$ and $$\deg(p) < \deg(q)$$ only yield $$\omega$$-transcendental values.

Proof: Reduce the sum to a smallest common denominator $$d \ge {b}^{k} > \omega$$ with $$d, k \in \mathbb{N}^{*}.\square$$

Three-cube theorem: By Fermat’s little theorem, $$k \in {}^{\omega }{\mathbb{Z}}$$ is sum of three cubes if and only if$k=(n – a)^3 + n^3 + (n + b)^3 = 3n^3 – a^3 + b^3+ 3c \ne \pm 4\mod 9$and $$a, b, c, d, m, n \in {}^{\omega }{\mathbb{Z}}$$ implies both$(a^2 + b^2)n – (a – b)n^2 = c =: dn$and for $$2a_{1,2} = n \pm m$$$m^2 = n^2 – 4(b^2 – bn + d).\square$

Goldbach’s theorem: Every integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes.

Proof: Induction over all prime gaps until the maximally possible one each time.$$\square$$

Conclusion by Hardy-Littlewood: The number of prime $$n$$-tuples for every $$n \in {}^{\omega }{\mathbb{N}_{\ge2}}$$ is infinite.$$\square$$

Theorem: The trigonometric and hyperbolic functions and their inverse functions, the digamma function $$\psi$$, the Lambert-$$W$$-function, the $$Ein$$ function, the (hyperbolic) sine integral $$S(h)i$$, the Euler’s Beta function $$B$$, and, for positive natural numbers $$s$$ and $$u$$ and natural numbers $$t$$, the generalised error function $${E}_{t}$$, the hypergeometric function $${}_{0}{F}_{t}$$, the Fresnel integrals $$C$$ and $$S$$ and the Bessel function $${I}_{t}$$ and the Bessel function of the first kind $${J}_{t}$$, the Legendre function $${\chi}_{t}$$, the polygamma function $${\psi}_{t}$$, the generalised Mittag-Leffler function $${E}_{s,t}$$, the Dirichlet series $$\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\omega}{{\hat{n}^{s}f(n)}\;}$$ with maximally finite rational $$|f(n)|$$, the prime zeta function $$P(s)$$, the polylogarithm $${Li}_{s}$$ and the Lerch zeta-function $$\Phi(q, s, r)$$ always yield $$\omega$$-transcendental values for rational arguments and maximal finite rational $$|q|$$ and $$|r|$$ at points where their Taylor series converge.

Proof: GPC, Dirichlet prime number theorem and Wallis product prove the claim. For the digamma function, the claim follows from the proof of $$\omega$$-transcendence of Euler’s constant above.$$\square$$

Definition: When two numbers $$x, y \in {}^{\omega }\mathbb{C}^{*}$$ or their reciprocals do not satisfy any polynomial or series equation $$p(x, y) = 0$$, so they are called $$\omega$$-algebraically independent. A rational number $$\ne 0$$ is said to be power-free if its modulus can only be represented as the power of a rational number with integer exponent $$= \pm 1$$. Let $$||\cdot|{{|}_{d}}$$ be the distance to the nearest integer.$$\triangle$$

Theorem: The GPC, with $$e = {(1 + \hat{p})}^{p}$$ for maximal $$p \in {}^{\omega }\mathbb{P}$$ and $$\pi$$ as Wallis product, yields pairwise $$\omega$$-algebraically independent representations of $$A, {C}_{2}, \gamma, e, K$$ and $$\pi.\square$$

Theorem: If all $$q \in Q := {\mathbb{Q}}_{>0}$$ are power-free, $${q}^{x} \in Q$$ and $${_2}\omega \gg |x| \in {}^{\omega}\mathbb{R}$$, it must $$x \in {}^{\omega }\mathbb{Z}$$ hold.

Proof: Let wlog $$x > 0$$. Since there is no contradiction for $$x \in {}^{\omega }\mathbb{N}^{*}$$, assume $$x \in Q \setminus {}^{\omega }{\mathbb{N}}^{*}$$. Since this implies $${q}^{x} \in {}^{\omega }{\mathbb{A}}_{R} \setminus Q$$, assume $$x := k/d \in {}^{\omega }\mathbb{R}_{>0} \setminus Q$$ for $$d, k \in {\mathbb{N}}^{*}$$ and gcd$$(d, k) = 1$$. This implies $${q}^{k} = {r}^{d}$$ for an $$r \in Q$$. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic yields a numerator or denominator of $$q$$ or $$r$$ greater than $$2^{\omega}$$. This contradiction results in the claim.$$\square$$

Remark: This theorem proves the Alaoglu and Erdős conjecture, which states that $${p}^{x}$$ and $${q}^{x}$$ are $$\nu$$-rational for distinct $$p, q \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{P}$$ if and only if $$x \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{Z}$$ and $$|x|$$ is not excessively large.

Littlewood theorem in conventional mathematics: For all $$a,b\in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{R}$$ and $$n\in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}^{*}$$, it holds that:$\underset{n\to \infty }{\mathop{\lim \inf }}\,n\;||na|{{|}_{d}}\;||nb|{{|}_{d}}=0.$Proof: For $$k, m \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}^{*}$$ as denominators of the continued fraction of $$a$$ resp. $$b$$ with precision $$g \in {}^{\nu}{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$$ and $$n/km$$ again and again integer, Dirichlet’s approximation theorem4Scheid, loc. cit., p. 63 yields that: $\underset{n\to \infty }{\mathop{\lim \inf }}\,n||na|{{|}_{d}}||nb|{{|}_{d}}=\underset{n\to \infty }{\mathop{\lim \inf }}\,n\mathcal{O}{{(\hat{n})}^{2}}=\underset{n\to \infty }{\mathop{\lim \inf }}\,\mathcal{O}(\hat{n})=0.\square$Refutation of the Littlewood conjecture in nonstandard mathematics: Let $$a = b := {{\omega}^{-{3}/{2}}}$$. Then it holds that: $\omega \;||\omega a|{{|}_{d}}\;||\omega b|{{|}_{d}}= 1 \ne 0.\square$Theorem: The 3$$n$$ + 1 conjecture is true for every $$n \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}^{*}$$.

Proof: The $$m$$ representations of $$n$$ are from $$\{1, …, 2^mk\}$$ without determining the parity of $$k \in {}^{\nu}\mathbb{N}^{*}$$. Then the mean expected value is ca. $$(3/4)^{m/2}$$ of the initial value until $$k$$ is determined. Cycles cannot occur5Slapničar, Ivan: There are no cycles in the 3n + 1 sequence, arXiv: 1706.08399v1. After $$s$$ maximally forced steps, the probability for $$n = 2^s – 1$$ to become larger is average and the claim follows by generalised iteration.$$\square$$

Example: For $$s \in {}^{(\omega)}\mathbb{C}$$ where Re$$(s) \le 1$$, $$\zeta(s) = \sum\limits_{n=1}^{\omega}{n^{-s}}$$ has definitely no analytic continuation6cf. Ivic, Aleksandar: The Riemann Zeta-Function; Reprint; 2003; Dover Publications; Mineola, p. 4 and no zeros. This disproves the Riemann hypothesis:$\sum_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\omega}}\frac{i^{2n}}{n^s}=2^{-\acute{s}}\sum_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\omega/2}}n^{-s}-\sum_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\omega}}n^{-s}\neq\left(2^{-\acute{s}}-1\right)\sum_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\omega(/2)}}n^{-s}.$

Theorem: Since the Dirichlet $$L$$-function $$L\left(s,\chi\right)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\omega}{\chi\left(n\right)n^{-s}}$$ has only zeros for $$s = 0$$ and nontrivial Dirichlet characters $$\chi(n)$$, it disproves the generalised Riemann hypothesis.$$\square$$