Re: Question on finding a Riemann Zeta function zero for high values of s
American Citizen <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Oct 2025 16:07:08 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.mathematics.pari.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hmm.. I am encountering problems after patching and recompiling. I am unable to do the 10^21 value that Odlyzko gave as s = 1/2 + 1370919909931995308226.68016095*I the gp pari program hangs. If you go over to https://www.lmfdb.org/zeros/zeta/?limit=100&N=103800788260 and pick the first zeta(s) = 0 in that row starting with 103800788260 entry which is given as zeta zero count imag value 103800788260 30610045972.0390910630030666727984229474273 I don't get zero ??? (using 57 bits precision) > ? t = 1/2 + 30610045972.0390910630030666727984229474273000000000000000*I > ? zeta(t) > %80 = -0.000645385413125445700656816505388581204917603751967671567187 > + 0.00141432995627737373722021733088168156756968182126816038178*I > ? s = 1/2 + 30610045972.0389751581198913418102142029585467738192498830*I > ? zeta(s) > %82 = -4.7188538541968517077111529282072387417 E-46 + > 1.03058368130580333982284683408181013424 E-45*I so t and s are off in the 0.0000x place in the decimal expansion. So which one is correct? s ? or t ? or neither? For the next entry or the 103800788261 zero number of the Riemann zeta function for complex 1/2 + x*I > s = 1/2 + 30610045972.3301196133311775056695486332490000000000000000*I but GP Pari gives > ? t = 1/2 + 30610045972.3301823075035849673628150748546420868088900184*I So which one is correct? s or t or none? This needs some careful investigation. Randall On 10/22/25 14:51, Cohen Henri wrote: > > Sorry, should have replied to list. In integrand_h0, replace line 309 > > p1=gmul(expIxy(pmd,gsqr(zn),prec), by > > p1 = gmul(pmd, mulcxI(gsqr(zn))); p1r = greal(p1); > if (gcmpgs(mpabs(p1r), 2*prec2nbits(prec)) > 0) p1 = p1r; > p1 = gmul(gexp(p1, prec), > > and declare p1r as a GEN. This is not good, but works here. It is to > avoid an > > overflow in gsincos when taking the exponential of A+I*B where B is > huge and > > A is huge negative or positive. The condition I wrote is ridiculous, > but I don't know what > > to put else. > > Henri >