Content deleted Content added
→Weil's Explicit Formula: new section |
Will Orrick (talk | contribs) revert old vandalism; change <\math> to </math> in a number of places; change $ to <math> or </math> |
||
Line 7:
=== Error? ===
"...Riemann found an explicit formula for the number of primes π(x) less than a given number x."
Should this
I tried to verify mathematically that the formula gives this, but I am not adept enough to work with it much...I did find that the f(x) formula can work either way (if pi(x) includes x, then f(x) includes x; and if pi(x) excludes x, then f(x) excludes x). This was quite simple using induction.
Line 40:
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] <
'''(1a)''' Should <math>\left[ \delta(u-\ln n) + \delta(u-\ln n) \right]<
'''(1b)''' Should <math>\frac{d\ln(1-e^{-2|u|})}{du}<
'''(1c)''' Should <math>\sum{\rho} e^{\rho u} <
'''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] <
[[User:StvC|StvC]] ([[User talk:StvC|talk]]) 22:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
|