--- In

primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "leavemsg1" <leavemsg1@...>

wrote:

>

> I wrote to Dr. Math on 9/6/06... today.

>

> He asked... What is your question?

>

> I wrote:

>

> I see the many definitions that math books are filled with and

ponder-

> ed one myself. I call it the ideal zero asymmetrical range of a

> complex function. It happens only when the following condition is

> met. The function f(x) has an IZAR when f(a+bi) = a*g(bi) where

the

> function g(x) strictly cannot be written as g(a+bi).

...omit the restriction.

The function should have been f(1/a + bi) = a * g(1+abi)

> I believe that

> if this condition has been met that the range of the function f(x)

> must have an ideal zero asymmetrical range about the value 'a' on

...and the value of asymmetrical interest should have been '1/a'

> its complex graph.

>

> He said... Tell me what you find most difficult or confusing about

it.

>

> I wrote:

>

> It is my belief that Riemann saw this condition but wasn't able to

> define it, because the zeta function had gained so much popularity

> with its connection to prime numbers. I want to believe that my

de-

> finition could be as fundamental for complex numbers as are the

real

> number definitions for monoids, groups, rings, etc. in mathematics.

>

> He said... show me your work...

>

> I replied...

>

> After evaluating the zeta function for z(1/2+it), we get...

>

> 2))))))))))))))4

> ------- + ------------- + ...

> (1+2it) (1 + 2it)^2

... I changed this series to agree with the above changes ...

>

> and 2 * g(1+2it) is the only way to factor out 2 from f(1/2+it) so

... this was also corrected to yield more clarity ...

> by definition the ideal zero asymmetrical range must exist. It's

my

> belief that several manipulations of the zeta function have been

made

> in an effort to solve the problem and that definitions similar to

the

> zero domain for real functions, etc. haven't been explored in the

> sense of the range of complex functions. It's been overlooked.

>

> I'm waiting for Dr. Rob's stimulating conversation... I won't be

> writing for a while... math is not my idea of fun... just under-

> standing. Bill Semper paratus.

>

I haven't heard from Dr. Rob and think that he will either find the

corrections to my original letter or skip the question entirely.

Bill finally I clarified it for those in the group and myself