Content deleted Content added
Sławomir Biały (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
2a02:587:4111:de00:9104:1d07:ceed:8574 (talk) Randomization function of the trivials |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Randomization function of the trivials == |
|||
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Mathematics|class=B}} |
|||
# try to connect mathematically the trivial zeros to the non trivial ones |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{high-traffic|date=20 March 2008|url=http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/20/1728236|site=Slashdot}} |
|||
{{DelistedGA|September 19, 2006}} |
|||
{{Maths rating|ACD=|frequentlyviewed=yes|class=Bplus|importance=top|field=number theory|portal=Y}} |
|||
{| class="infobox" width="270px" |
|||
|- |
|||
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]] |
|||
---- |
|||
|- |
|||
| |
|||
==Untitled== |
|||
* [[Talk:Riemann hypothesis/archive1|November 2005 (Fayez Fok Al Adeh discussion)]] |
|||
* [[Talk:Riemann hypothesis/archive2|2004–2005]] |
|||
* [[Talk:Riemann hypothesis/archive3|2005–2008]] |
|||
* [[Talk:Riemann hypothesis/archive4|2009]] |
|||
* [[Talk:Riemann hypothesis/archive5|2010–2015]] |
|||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|||
::: so use a [[random]]izing function, insert the trivial zeros and solFAILED |
|||
== January 2016: new year, same old story == |
|||
Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riemann_hypothesis&diff=699932283&oldid=699931819 this edit]: [http://www.pspchv.com/Open_Access_Policy.html Pioneer Scientific Publisher] is yet another website that accepts pretty much anything, and people have to pay for the privilege of doing so ($400 to $850 according to the source).--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 09:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Computations == |
|||
Platt's work (2011 and later) should be added. Also, shouldn't we say something about the degree of rigour of some computations? I've heard that Gourdon-Demichel is a bit ropey on this point, due to non-rigorous sampling. [[User:Garald|Garald]] ([[User talk:Garald|talk]]) 22:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Please make it readable == |
|||
As with many other WP articles on physics and math, there is quite a high "baseline level" of knowledge required for the reader. This is counterproductive, as an encyclopedia is supposedly intended for people who do not already know everything about the subject (or else why would they look it up?). |
|||
Example from this article: in the section "History", the function "Li" is introduced without any explanation or even link to an explanation. The term "Li" is short enough to have two meanings in math listed in WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylogarithm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_integral_function. Thus, being a relative novice and not knowing which one is referred to (although I can guess), I can't even edit in a link here. Please have some perspective and put yourselves in the situation of someone less well educated, but still keen to learn. If you don't, I will suspect that you are more interested in showing off your expertise than in spreading knowledge. Sorry. |
|||
[[User:Wdanbae|Wdanbae]] ([[User talk:Wdanbae|talk]]) 07:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:You didn't see the sentence "The function Li occurring in the first term is..." ? It's a few lines down, but all of the lines between the formula and that sentence are also explanations of other parts of the same formula. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 08:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry, my bad. Although I would have preferred to have the explanation even earlier than that in order not to lose faith, I guess I am oversensitized by all the other occurrences of unexplained or unlinked-to terminology that I have encountered elsewhere. Here, statement withdrawn. [[User:Wdanbae|Wdanbae]] ([[User talk:Wdanbae|talk]]) 08:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==Asking for suggestions== |
|||
Sorry for asking something that's not really related to Wikipedia, but here goes. I recently put on line [http://eric.kvaalen.com/papers/CommentaryDeBrangesAug2015 a paper I wrote] commenting on the attempt of Louis de Branges to prove the Riemann Hypothesis. How can I bring it to the attention of those who would be interested? [[User:Eric Kvaalen|Eric Kvaalen]] ([[User talk:Eric Kvaalen|talk]]) 09:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== One of the references points at a non-existent page == |
|||
Mazur, Barry; Stein, William (2014), Primes. What is Riemann's hypothesis - the link http://modular.math.washington.edu/rh/ brings up a 404 when I try to navigate to it. I did a quick look for it, but I wasn't 100% sure exactly which book it was supposed to be. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can point the link towards a working location?[[Special:Contributions/142.109.6.1|142.109.6.1]] ([[User talk:142.109.6.1|talk]]) 19:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:I've updated it to a working link for the same book under a slightly different title and date, http://wstein.org/rh/ —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Popular expositions == |
|||
Does it really make sense to break out "Popular expositions" as a separate subsection of the references section? Also, I am puzzled why some things were included and not others. The selection seems rather arbitrary in my opinion, and not really connected with any reliable metric of "popularness" of sources. I think [[WP:NPOV]] should urge against this arbitrary judgement of some sources to be "popular" (and thus, less good perhaps?) <small><span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:-.3em;line-height:.8em;text-align:right;text-shadow:black 1pt 1pt 1pt">[[User:Slawekb|<big>S</big>ławomir]]<br/><font color="red">[[User talk:Slawekb|Biały]]</font></span></small> 15:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: I completely agree with this separate subsection. Maybe some other works should be included in it also (I haven't gone through all references yet), but these four definitely are - euphemistically - "popular" expositions. And they are (not perhaps but certainly) "less good". In fact I wonder if we should not suppress these references from the article. None of the authors is a specialist of the subject. Sabbagh is not even a mathematician, and his book is his one and only work reviewed by MathSciNet (by [[Roger Heath-Brown|D.R. Heath-Brown]], who politely reports that it is not a good book). The report on du Sautoy's book states that it is "not sufficiently accurate and complete". The report on Rockmore's book is not good either (also from Heath-Brown). Finally Derbyshire (who is credited with only 3 reviewed works on MathSciNet!) has the worst review ("While some chapters are not too bad, most seem to miss their mark"[…] "I am not sure the author ever answers the question of why the Riemann hypothesis is important.") [[User:Sapphorain|Sapphorain]] ([[User talk:Sapphorain|talk]]) 17:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think they should be suppressed, and I think calling them "less good" is an oversimplification, but I agree with keeping them separate. They have a different character than the other references and are aimed at a different audience. Keeping them separate helps that audience to find material on this subject that is readable by them, and helps mathematicians avoid material that is too popularized to be useful to them. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::: I almost agree to conservation. Rather reluctantly concerning Derbyshire's book. But I don't agree at all concerning Sabbagh's books. I just moved in the new subsection his other book on the subject (also published in 2003…), which is not reviewed by MathSciNet and Zbl (and not even ''indexed'' by MathSciNet!). Here is journalist, who is writing vulgarization on about everything you can think of, who is not a specialist of the subject, who is not even a mathematician, even in a very large acception of the term, and who publishes ''two'' books on the Riemann hypothesis the same year. This is not serious. [[User:Sapphorain|Sapphorain]] ([[User talk:Sapphorain|talk]]) 22:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Riemann hypothesis]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=730894846 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005173705/http://www.zetagrid.net/ to http://www.zetagrid.net/ |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 16:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Fast Prime? == |
|||
Sorry if this is well know, but looking at the patterns in 3d (hard to view 4D) of the values of non-prime numbers, it seems like one could simply look at the data around the chosen point to follow it down to 1/2. I guess a proof is (a, all 'fingers' lead down to 1/2 eventually and we know that their are an infinate number of primes.... so proving infinate fingers may be a step. I do apologize if I'm an idiot. I'm no maths whiz but for 20 years this problem has held me in it's grip. My only wish is for SOMEONE to prove, or disprove OR fall into Gödel's incompleteness theorems. |
|||
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:213.106.56.145|213.106.56.145]] ([[User talk:213.106.56.145#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/213.106.56.145|contribs]]) </small> |
Revision as of 03:27, 20 December 2016
Randomization function of the trivials
- try to connect mathematically the trivial zeros to the non trivial ones
- so use a randomizing function, insert the trivial zeros and solFAILED