Content deleted Content added
Inserted archive code and archive box. |
|||
Line 7:
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(365d)
| archive = Talk:Arithmetic function/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 10
}}
{{Archive box |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=12 |units=months |auto=yes }}
== Revert ==
Line 63 ⟶ 72:
== Arithmetic vs arithmetical ==
please, if concensus is reached could this be clarified in the article ?
*The page's title is "arithmetic f." (and that where most pages link to).
Line 72 ⟶ 80:
== Changes ==
I've made some changes to the article. The introduction was not general enough. I made it general and simple. The old introduction made only passing reference to more complicated objects such as Dirichlet convalutions. For that reason I removed a lot of it. It was difficult to add more detail later without repeating oneself. That problem's gone now. Please feel free to add new sections. [[User:Declan Davis#top|<span style="background-color:green;color:gold;"> <i><b>Declan Davis</b></i> </span>]] [[User talk:Declan Davis#top|<span style="background-color:green;color:gold;"> <i><b>(talk)</b></i> </span>]] 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
== Examples of arithmetic functions ==
I've reinstated "of arithmetic functions" in the section heading. Since it follows directly after the definitions of multiplicative and completly multiplicative functions I want to make it clear that they are not example of these two. [[User:Declan Davis#top|<span style="background-color:green;color:gold;"> <i><b>Δεκλαν Δαφισ</b></i> </span>]] [[User talk:Declan Davis#top|<span style="background-color:green;color:gold;"> <i><b>(talk)</b></i> </span>]] 11:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
== Parsing error? ==
In the divisor convolution subsection, I see a parsing error for the sigma_5 and sigma_7 formulas when viewing the whole page, but not when in preview of just that section. The same thing is happening in the class number section. I cannot figure out what is going on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 14:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
:Now, there would be no persing error because I have recompiled this article. Perhaps it might be temporal errors. --[[User:Enyokoyama|Enyokoyama]] ([[User talk:Enyokoyama|talk]]) 15:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
== Error in formula ==
under Notaion: second sentence, after "the sum or product is over all prime powers with strictly positive exponent (so 1 is not counted)::, formula is missing something.--[[User:GangofOne|GangofOne]] ([[User talk:GangofOne|talk]]) 03:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Line 95 ⟶ 99:
== Confused ==
In [[Arithmetic function#Miscellaneous]], in the third to fifth lines, on my computer, the passage is very confused. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/38.117.79.31|38.117.79.31]] ([[User talk:38.117.79.31|talk]]) 11:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Yes, I modified a bit this strange layout. But the layout of the whole section is still very unconventional. [[User:Sapphorain|Sapphorain]] ([[User talk:Sapphorain|talk]]) 12:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
== Can anyone make sense of this diagram from the article? ==
I have tried making sense of this diagram on two occasions, with no luck. I am considering deleting it. I looked at the history of the user who added it (three years ago) and he had a history of putting original research in articles and was eventually permanently blocked, so I tend to think this is trying to show something from a pet project, rather than some fundamental relationship of BigOmega.
Line 121 ⟶ 123:
== Precise definition ==
There are a few references in the article, e.g. "prime counting functions, which are not arithmetic functions", that imply that arithmetic function should have some precise definition. But the only definition I see of the term is "expresses some arithmetic property of n" which is not precise at all (at least without a link to arithmetic). Is it even a precise term, and if so, what is its definition? Can we make it clearer what the actual definition is? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luqui|Luqui]] ([[User talk:Luqui#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luqui|contribs]]) 23:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: The apparently vague definition given by Hardy and Wright and mentioned in the first line of the article becomes clear in view of the classical functions they consider in their chapter 16. A more precise and less restrictive definition is however widely accepted by number theorists:
Line 145 ⟶ 146:
== Table ==
I do not understand, why Anita5912 reverted my new table.
The new table is much better understandable than the old ones. It contains all functions up to x=4 and explains all the eaxmples in the text.
| |||