Timeline for Non-vanishing of zeta(s), Re(s)=1, without complex analysis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22 at 8:15 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Feb 27, 2019 at 0:33 | comment | added | Nobody | Please read the paper by J. Korevaar: "On Newman's Quick Way to the prime number theorem". In my opinion, this article is much better written than that of D. Zagier. (Of course, my opinion does not count much.) | |
| Nov 17, 2010 at 15:27 | answer | added | M Mueger | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 23, 2010 at 11:35 | answer | added | David E Speyer | timeline score: 13 | |
| Sep 23, 2010 at 9:21 | answer | added | H A Helfgott | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 23, 2010 at 5:05 | comment | added | H A Helfgott | Actually, no, I've already decided not to give that. I'm giving a proof via Wiener-Ikehara - it's quite natural, and it introduces many nice ideas from Fourier analysis without using complex analysis. This seems to be the one sticking point. | |
| Sep 23, 2010 at 5:01 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Given your motivation, maybe you just want to present the Erdos-Selberg elementary proof of the Prime Number Theorem. There's an exposition in Tenenbaum and Mendes France, The Prime Numbers and Their Distribution, published by the Amer Math Soc. | |
| Sep 23, 2010 at 4:53 | history | asked | H A Helfgott | CC BY-SA 2.5 |