last day (15 days later) » 

12:58
1
A: Is there an elegant exact formula for the zeta zero counting function?

reunsYour edit shows that Mathematica is just taking $\arg \zeta(s)$ in $(-\pi,\pi)$. The obtained function doesn't have good analytic properties, it is isn't what we need for $N(T)$ (the non-trivial zeros counting function). What we need, the standard definition of $\arg \zeta(s)$. (ie. the one you'l...

Is it not true that violations of Gram's law implies transitions of both $\arg\left(\zeta\left(\frac12+i\,T\right)\right)$ and $\Im\left(\log\zeta\left(\frac12+i\,T\right)\right)$ in the neighborhood of Gram points where Gram's law is violated?
$\log \zeta(s)$ has a branch analytic on any simply connected domain not containing a zero/pole. When removing the horizontal 'lines' $(-\infty,1]$ and $(i\Im(\rho)-\infty,i\Im(\rho)+1]$ I get a simply connected domain where $\log \zeta(s)$ is analytic. This function has some jumps on vertical lines on $\Re(s)\le 1$.
@StevenClark It is a bit frustrating that you don't reply when I am asking if those few complex analysis prerequisites are clear to you. To understand what mathematica is doing you should show us a ComplexPlot (modulus/phase) of $\log \zeta(s)$ on $\Re(s)\in (-1,3),\Im(s)\in (-50,50)$
My argument is based on what I've read about Gram points and Gram's law and the equivalence of $\Im\left(\log\zeta\left(\frac12+i\,T\right)\right)$ and $\arg\left(\zeta\left(\frac12+i\,T\right)\right)$ as well as the Mathematica results. I don't believe Mathematica is doing anything different in terms of analytic continuation. When I run a simplify operation on $\Im(\log\zeta(s))$ Mathematica gives the result $\arg(\zeta(s))$, so it's possible when Mathematica is asked to evaluate $\Im(\log\zeta(s))$ it actually ends up evaluating $\arg(\zeta(s))$.
$\Im \log$ and $arg$ are the same thing, this is not the point, for a function with zeros and poles there are many ways to define $\Im \log F(s)$, adding or substracting $2 k\pi$ differently at every $s$. Gram points don't have anything to do in my answer.
I'll take a look at generating some density plots. I can also generate 3D and contour plots if needed. I can generate separate plots for abs value, real component, imaginary component, and arg if you want but I'm not sure all of these are really needed.
12:58
It is as if you didn't care of my answer.
Sorry, I was busy today. When I saw your last comment yesterday indicating "This function has some jumps on vertical lines on R(s)≤1" I thought perhaps you were investigating and beginning to come around to my position.
The following link implies $\Re(\log(\zeta(s)))=\log(|\zeta (s)|)$: wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Re%5BLog%5BZeta%5Bs%5D%5D%5D. I evaluated a density plot of $\Re(\log(\zeta(s)))-\log(|\zeta (s)|)$ and this does indeed seem to be the case. Doesn't this along with $\Im(\log\zeta(s))=\arg(\zeta(s))$ tell you everything you need to know about Mathematica's analytic continuation of $\log\zeta(s)$?
See my edit ${}{}$
Thanks. I'll study your answer and dig through some of my books to see if I can find more information on the standard definition of $\arg\zeta(s)$.
I noticed Mathematica is truncating the plot range of the 3D plot of $\Im(\log\zeta(s)))$ that I illustrated in my question above so I defined a standard version of the $\arg(s)$ function (where $-\pi<\arg(s)<\pi$) as $\arg_{\pi}(s)=-i \log\left(\frac{s}{|s| }\right)$. I then compared $\arg_{\pi}(\zeta(s))$ to the Mathematica implementation of $\arg(\zeta(s))$. Contour and density plots seem to illustrate a difference but I can't seem to confirm this difference with normal plots.
Mathematica's implementation of $\arg(\zeta(s))$ has a lot of branches for $\Re(s)<\frac{1}{2}$ and $\Im(s)\ne \rho$. Just to clarify, are you saying there are no branches in the standard version of $\arg(\zeta(s))$ for $\Re(s)<1/2$ where $\Im(s)$ does not correspond to the imaginary part of a non-trivial zeta zero?
The word is branch point and branch cut. I explained everything in my answer. What is unclear to you.
In a comment on my question above @Conrad indicated "analytic continuity on the segment $2 \to 2+it \to 1/2+it$" which seemed inconsistent with your answer.
12:58
It is not, this is what I am doing in my answer. We start with $\log \zeta(s)$ analytic on $\Re(s) > 1$ then we continue analytically along horizontal lines.
Conrad's comment seems to imply to me the analytic continuity is only valid for $Re(s)\ge\frac{1}{2}$, whereas your answer seems to imply to me the analytic continuity extends to the left of the critical line.
No. You really need to learn about this topic: analyticity / analytic continuation (not continuity). $\log F(s)$ can be continued analytically along a curve iff $F$ is analytic with no zeros/poles on that curve. This is because $\log F(s)$ is the primitive of $F'(s)/F(s)$.

last day (15 days later) »