Talk:Explicit formulae for L-functions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:35, 30 October 2010

Revision as of 14:17, 24 August 2011

Line 12:

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)