Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning-math The Zeta function and the Riemann Hypothesis

I've been doing some reading on the Zeta function to try and get a
handle on this infinite-limit thing better, but as I read things and
try to relate them to what Gene has written, I'm never sure when the
zeta tuning article assumes the Riemann hypothesis.

Does anything that we're doing with the Zeta function assume the
Riemann hypothesis?

Conversely, I'm quite curious to know: does RH have any musical
implications, even if they're probably inaudible ones involving really
large primes or whatever?

Thanks,
Mike

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>

Bump; I'd much like an answer to this, if anyone has the time to give it.

-Mike

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been doing some reading on the Zeta function to try and get a
> handle on this infinite-limit thing better, but as I read things and
> try to relate them to what Gene has written, I'm never sure when the
> zeta tuning article assumes the Riemann hypothesis.
>
> Does anything that we're doing with the Zeta function assume the
> Riemann hypothesis?
>
> Conversely, I'm quite curious to know: does RH have any musical
> implications, even if they're probably inaudible ones involving really
> large primes or whatever?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike

🔗phjelmstad@msn.com

Gene would know but i don't think u need 2 assume RZH

Sent via DroidX2 on Verizon Wireless™

-----Original message-----
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>
To: tuning-math@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 26, 2013 09:42:30 GMT+00:00
Subject: [tuning-math] Re: The Zeta function and the Riemann Hypothesis

Bump; I'd much like an answer to this, if anyone has the time to give it.

-Mike

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>

Thanks. It would be nice if Gene could weigh in, especially since all
I need is a yes or no.

-Mike

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:06 PM, phjelmstad@msn.com <phjelmstad@msn.com>
wrote:
>
> Gene would know but i don't think u need 2 assume RZH
>
> Sent via DroidX2 on Verizon Wireless™
>
>
> -----Original message-----
>
> From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>
> To: tuning-math@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Feb 26, 2013 09:42:30 GMT+00:00
> Subject: [tuning-math] Re: The Zeta function and the Riemann Hypothesis
>
>
>
> Bump; I'd much like an answer to this, if anyone has the time to give it.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Mike Battaglia battaglia01@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I've been doing some reading on the Zeta function to try and get a
> > handle on this infinite-limit thing better, but as I read things and
> > try to relate them to what Gene has written, I'm never sure when the
> > zeta tuning article assumes the Riemann hypothesis.
> >
> > Does anything that we're doing with the Zeta function assume the
> > Riemann hypothesis?
> >
> > Conversely, I'm quite curious to know: does RH have any musical
> > implications, even if they're probably inaudible ones involving really
> > large primes or whatever?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
>
>

🔗Paul <phjelmstad@msn.com>

Yes, no, yes, well five is RIGHT OUT

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It would be nice if Gene could weigh in, especially since all
> I need is a yes or no.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:06 PM, phjelmstad@... <phjelmstad@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Gene would know but i don't think u need 2 assume RZH
> >
> > Sent via DroidX2 on Verizon Wireless
> >
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> >
> > From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
> > To: tuning-math@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, Feb 26, 2013 09:42:30 GMT+00:00
> > Subject: [tuning-math] Re: The Zeta function and the Riemann Hypothesis
> >
> >
> >
> > Bump; I'd much like an answer to this, if anyone has the time to give it.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
> > wrote:
> > > I've been doing some reading on the Zeta function to try and get a
> > > handle on this infinite-limit thing better, but as I read things and
> > > try to relate them to what Gene has written, I'm never sure when the
> > > zeta tuning article assumes the Riemann hypothesis.
> > >
> > > Does anything that we're doing with the Zeta function assume the
> > > Riemann hypothesis?
> > >
> > > Conversely, I'm quite curious to know: does RH have any musical
> > > implications, even if they're probably inaudible ones involving really
> > > large primes or whatever?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike
> >
> >
>

🔗Paul <phjelmstad@msn.com>

Well, I doubt it matters, since it isn't proven yet anyway, and since the real part isn't even on the critical line in the zeta tunings (1/ln2pit), I don't think you have to assume it. I am hoping I am dead wrong so he will chime in.

🔗Paul <phjelmstad@msn.com>

Although it doesn't relate directly to tuning, I did find a paper which discusses the zeta function and Vertex Operator Algebras. VOA's are important in physics, and play into the Monster Lie Algebra / VOA involved in the Moonshine conjectures. So it would be fun to bring Moonshine and zeta together vis-a-vis tuning. And both of these are related to 12 and 24 which I am in love with I must confess. The paper is a mind trip and I can post it to the Files section if you like (or the link). Speaking of 12, did you know that the birth of Jesus Christ is 1 AD, the exact start of Pieces in sidereal astrology? And that the water-bearer plays into Luke 22:10? (the preparation for the Last Supper). I only bring this up because I had fish last night as is often an observance during the time of Lent.

PGH

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>

On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:41 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
> > Conversely, I'm quite curious to know: does RH have any musical
> > implications, even if they're probably inaudible ones involving really
> > large primes or whatever?
>
> RH has inaudible "musical" implications.

Thanks, though the main part of my question was this yes or no question here:

"Does anything that we're doing with the Zeta function assume the
Riemann hypothesis?"

Does it?

Thanks,
Mike

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:27 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
> I don't recall us ever assuming it.

Hooray! Thanks. I thought the answer was "no," but I'd read about
situations where people were working with the Z function and ended up
assuming RH without realizing it, so I wanted to be sure that we
weren't working with that same situation here.

-Mike

🔗Paul <phjelmstad@msn.com>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:27 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't recall us ever assuming it.
>
> Hooray! Thanks. I thought the answer was "no," but I'd read about
> situations where people were working with the Z function and ended up
> assuming RH without realizing it, so I wanted to be sure that we
> weren't working with that same situation here.
>
> -Mike
>

This is one of my favorite tuning topics. An interesting subtopic is the case of the Gram points, well worth reviewing.