Timeline for Dirichlet and the prime number theorem
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 7 at 18:21 | comment | added | KConrad | @GerryMyerson it was surely Legendre's conjecture of the prime number theorem in the peculiar form $x/(\log x - 1.08366)$. | |
| May 7 at 3:31 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Would someone please let me know, what exactly was the remarkable formula given by Legendre? | |
| May 6 at 8:26 | history | edited | KConrad | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| May 6, 2010 at 22:02 | comment | added | José Hdz. Stgo. | Guess that's exactly what he was implying when he wrote "a demonstration of the remarkable formula given by Legendre". Nice catch, Professor Stillwell! | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 6:21 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @John Stillwell: Certainly he never claimed that he proved the PNT, did he? | |
| Mar 5, 2010 at 1:10 | comment | added | John Stillwell | So, we have an apparent counterexample to the famous saying of Jacobi: Dirichlet alone, not I, nor Cauchy, nor Gauss knows what a completely rigorous mathematical proof is. Rather we learn it first from him. When Gauss says that he has proved something, it is very clear; when Cauchy says it, one can wager as much pro as con; when Dirichlet says it, it is certain ... Quoted in G Schubring, Zur Modernisierung des Studiums der Mathematik in Berlin, 1820-1840. | |
| Mar 4, 2010 at 23:56 | history | answered | KConrad | CC BY-SA 2.5 |