Talk:Analytic number theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Older comments

I don't think the last paragraph is very legible. Would anybody mind rewriting it? Hasdrubal 20:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant the paragraph that got deleted. Hasdrubal 19:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

The first part of this article is very accurate. Homever, after that probabilistic number theory is mentionned it's very badly written. 1. Probabilistic number theory studies the distribution of values of additive and multiplicative functions. It is not the mumbo-jumbo written in the introduction. 2. Tao's theorem is *arguably* the most important and deep in the field. 3. The mention of Erdos conjecture about sum((-1)^n * n / p_n) does *not* deserve the prominent place it is given in the article. 4. In the circle problem the "conjectured" result O(r^(1/4)) is in fact false. See the article http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0302010v1 by Soundararajan. 5. I'll probably add more if I read the article in full. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.18.153 (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah... Let me add that it is Selberg and not Hardy & Littlewood that proved that a positive proportion of the zeroes of the zeta function lies on Re s = 1/2. Hardy's result I think was that infinitely many of them lie on the critical strip (or maybe some bound, but not a positive proportion if I remember correctly). All in all I would recommed to delete the new addition as they are seriously mesleading and contain serious mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.18.153 (talk)

Deletion of big chunk of the article

Hi guys ! I tried deleting in vain the parts of the article at which I complained in the comment above. I think It's better to have a smaller (tentative, truncated) article than a bigger one with a lot of misleading (& false) information. I mean this article is making me suffer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.124.97 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are also deleting citations, categories, etc. It would be better if you fixed things section by section rather than just hacking away at it. —Elipongo (Talk contribs)

Indeed, a more specific form of deletion would be better. I will say however that I do agree that at lot of this content should be deleted. WP:V states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable source". I think the material in question is of debatable veracity, and so should be left out for now, pending verifiable sources. RobHar (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote Gauss circle problem

This article is quite uneven in quality. I found the section on the Gauss circle problem to be especially weak: there was hardly a single completely correct statement. I rewrote it completely. If these revisions remain stable, then some references should be added.

I myself have a little writeup on the Gauss circle problem, available at

http://math.uga.edu/~pete/4400gausscircle.pdf

I stopped short of creating a link to this page, but someone else might (or might not, of course) want to do so. Plclark (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)