Timeline for Did André Weil predict that the Riemann Hypothesis would be settled by prime number theory rather than by analysis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2019 at 15:43 | history | edited | Denis Serre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| S May 12, 2019 at 15:04 | history | suggested | user1728 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed a typographical error and added page references
|
| May 12, 2019 at 14:26 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 12, 2019 at 15:04 | |||||
| Jan 2, 2011 at 17:35 | comment | added | Jonathan Sondow | My apologies to bhwang and my thanks to him for the quotation. I also thank Chandan for the correction. | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 4:38 | comment | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | Dear Jonathan, not my quotation ! Weil's passage was quoted by user bhwang; my only contribution has been to correct three spelling mistakes, one of them with the help of Georges Elencwajg. | |
| Jan 1, 2011 at 15:39 | comment | added | Romeo | @EdDean: in general one does not cite baidu, google, bantu, persee, wiki, blogspot, etc etc etc as sources of sources unless there is an expositional need to do so. particularly, as noted by GElencwajg, these things often come down to prioritization of a search site's search algorithm that depends on the region in which you happen to be getting internet service at the time. | |
| Jan 1, 2011 at 14:42 | comment | added | Jonathan Sondow | I voted up Chandan Singh Dalawat's quotation as close to what I had in mind. But I didn't mark it as my accepted answer, because I remember reading somewhere a much shorter statement (by or about Weil) that explicitly mentions prime numbers. | |
| Jan 1, 2011 at 7:20 | history | edited | Chandan Singh Dalawat | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
après qu’on eu --> après qu’on eut. Merci, Georges.
|
| Dec 31, 2010 at 11:29 | comment | added | Georges Elencwajg | (Continuation) Moreover, since MathOverflow is not a research online journal, specialists usually answer questions without giving references to original documents nor citing the source of their inspiration and I think this is the right attitude on our site. | |
| Dec 31, 2010 at 11:25 | comment | added | Georges Elencwajg | Dear Ed, I'm very happy that you refer to my friend's Lieven great blog. However I disagree with your claim that bhwang must give credit to it "for bringing this passage to your mind". I have no idea what is going on in bhwang's mind and I believe that, indeed, he copied the passage from Lieven's blog. But that proves nothing: If I have a book and I want to reproduce a few paragraphs from it, I use Google to find a source online and then copy the needed lines from it without giving much attention to its environment.(to be continued) | |
| Dec 31, 2010 at 9:26 | comment | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | I agree that Le Bruyn's blog post appears to be the immediate source of this quote: they both have exactly the same two spelling mistakes. | |
| Dec 31, 2010 at 9:14 | comment | added | Ed Dean | @Chandan: I do not dispute that, and I certainly do not mean to disparage anyone, so let me be clear on that. But the edit history demonstrates that that blog post is where this answer originated, and I felt Le Bruyn's expository effort there should be acknowledged with a citation. That is all; respectfully yours. | |
| Dec 31, 2010 at 9:06 | comment | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | Some of us had read this passage before blogs were born. $$ $$ | |
| Dec 31, 2010 at 8:52 | comment | added | Ed Dean | Whether or not this passage is what the OP is after, it seems only right that Lieven Le Bruyn's blog post at matrix.cmi.ua.ac.be/fun/index.php/andre-weil-on-the-rh.html be given credit for bringing this passage to your mind. | |
| Dec 31, 2010 at 8:48 | history | edited | Chandan Singh Dalawat | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
gausienne --> gaussienne, nus --> nous
|
| Dec 31, 2010 at 8:43 | history | edited | bhwang | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Found an official English translation
|
| Dec 31, 2010 at 8:33 | history | answered | bhwang | CC BY-SA 2.5 |