Talk:The Riemann zeta function and tuning: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
:: I largely concur with Godtone here; I'd rather review each section one by one and add insertions and changes from the working page into each where needed. | :: I largely concur with Godtone here; I'd rather review each section one by one and add insertions and changes from the working page into each where needed. | ||
:: [[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 22:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC) | :: [[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 22:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC) | ||
:: On more specific points, I believe that all three derivations should be included: the streamlined derivation based on Peter Buch's work should come first, while Gene's and Battaglia's come after. I think it's in general very edifying to see multiple routes of approach to the same concept, and especially in this case these different derivations reflect different things you're actually measuring for, which lead to different variants of zeta (specifically real vs absolute) and have bearing on the choice of sigma. I think that the section on the "matter of sigma" should include its current contents (excised from Gene's derivation) but in addition to other writeup (which I plan to do) on why sigma = 1 is reasonable as well. Both Gene's and Battaglia's derivations provide good insight into the subtleties of this choice and I think they have a good cause to remain on the page as a result. | |||
:: [[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 22:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC) | |||