Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by Cstanford.math - "" |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: field. Tag: |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Mathematics| importance=low}}
}}
Line 12 ⟶ 10:
Besides verifying mathematically, I have always seen the prime counting function before as including x - and it is defined that way on [[Prime-counting function|the Wiki page]]. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cstanford.math|Cstanford.math]] ([[User talk:Cstanford.math|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cstanford.math|contribs]]) 01:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
=== Reply to ''Error?'' ===
For most questions about the prime counting functions it is irrelevant, whether you define it to be continuous from the left or from the right, since you only change it on a set of measure 0 and the difference is bounded. However, in the case of the Riemann explicit formula this is no longer true and you stumbled indeed on an error in this article. If you want the explicit formula to hold at prime powers, you have to define
:<math>\pi(p) = 0.5 \lim_{h\to 0}(\pi(p+h) + \pi(p-h))</math>
for all prime numbers ''p''. You can find this on page four both in the german and english version of the transliteration of Riemann's original paper by David R. Wilkins (follow the link in the references). There it says (in the english version)
"Let F(x) be equal to this number (the number of primes < x) when x is not exactly equal to a prime
number; but let it be greater by 1/2 when x is a prime number..."
In modern literature this "normalized" prime counting function is sometimes denoted by <math>\pi_0,</math> a notation which I would also suggest for this article.
[[User:Jpb101|Jpb101]] ([[User talk:Jpb101|talk]]) 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
== Article name is too general ==
The name of this article, "Explicit formula", is way too general. I came to this article via a link that was intended to give an explanation that an explicit formula is a formula of the type ''x'' = function of something not involving ''x''.
Could someone who is familiar with the topic of this page move it to a more specific title? Thanks. [[User:Duoduoduo|Duoduoduo]] ([[User talk:Duoduoduo|talk]]) 13:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC) I would note that the article was originally called "Explicit formulae (L-function)", which sounds perfect to me, but it was moved to "Explicit formula" on 23:32, 8 January 2009 with the edit summary "shorter title". [[User:Duoduoduo|Duoduoduo]] ([[User talk:Duoduoduo|talk]]) 13:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
should it be renamed as 'explicit formulae relating prime numbers and riemann zeros ' ? since it's a relationship between prime numbers and Riemann zeros <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.130.159.27|82.130.159.27]] ([[User talk:82.130.159.27#top|talk]]) 12:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Weil's Explicit Formula ==
Some of the formulas under this topic don't look correct to me.
'''Question (1)''': In the formula <math>\frac{d}{du} \left[ \sum\limits_{n \le e^{|u|}} \Lambda(n) + \frac{1}{2} \ln(1-e^{-2|u|})\right] </math><math>= \sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty \Lambda(n) \left[ \delta(u-\ln n) + \delta(u-\ln n) \right] + \frac{d\ln(1-e^{-2|u|})}{du} = e^u - \sum{\rho} e^{\rho u} </math>,
'''(1a)''' Should <math>\left[ \delta(u-\ln n) + \delta(u-\ln n) \right]</math> be <math>\left(\delta(u-\ln n)+\delta(u+\ln n)\right)</math>?
'''(1b)''' Should <math>\frac{d\ln(1-e^{-2|u|})}{du}</math> be <math>\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\ln(1-e^{-2|u|})}{du}</math>?
'''(1c)''' Should <math>\sum{\rho} e^{\rho u} </math> be <math>\sum\limits_{\rho}{\rho}\,e^{\rho u}</math> or <math>\sum\limits_{\rho}\,e^{\rho u}</math>?
'''Question (2)''': In the last paragraph should <math>g(u) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \Lambda(n) \left[ \delta(u-\ln n) + \delta(u-\ln n) \right] </math> be <math>g(u)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\Lambda(n)\left(\delta(u-\ln n)+\delta(u+\ln n)\right)</math>?
[[User:StvC|StvC]] ([[User talk:StvC|talk]]) 22:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
| |||