Talk:Analytic number theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Analytic number theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Top‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles Top This article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale.

Can someone recommend a book on analytic number theory?

This question was asked a long time ago, but for future reference: Two excellent books that come to mind are

• Tom Apostol's Introduction to Analytic Number Theory (from Springer-Verlag)
• Gerald Tenenbaum's Introduction to Analytic Number Theory (from Cambridge University Press)

I like both of these books a lot. Apostol's is excellent for the undergraduate, and Tenenbaum's for the graduate student. Cheers, Doctormatt 20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Richard Bellman's Analytic Number Theory, An Introduction. Addison Wesley 1980 ISBN 0-8053-0360-X. Lycurgus 19:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manin, Yu.I. and Panchishkin, A.A: Introduction to Modern Number Theory, 2nd Edition, Encyclopedia of Mathematical Sciences Volume 49, Springer, 2000

Bateman, Paul T. and Diamond, Harold G. : Analytic Number Theory, An Introductory Course, World Scientific — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.136.223.113 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out already, this article is of very bad quality and needs rewriting. I did my bit by rewriting the section on the prime number theorem. It previously claimed that the error in the prime number theorem tended to zero as x went to infinity. This is the statement that the error term is o(1). This is definitely wrong! The Riemann Hypothesis itself is equivalent to an error term of ${\displaystyle O(x^{1/2+\varepsilon })}$ which is a lot weaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.120.160.228 (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in quite a bad state - I rewrote the lead section as a start, but I'm going to redo most of it in the next couple of days. I don't like the current selection of topics, so I'd like suggestions for how this sort of article should be organised. Early thoughts:

History (Dirichlet, Riemann, recent developments)

Significant results (PNT, Gauss circle problem, Goldston-Yildirim, zeta function results and consequences)

Main techniques (L-functions, circle method, sieve methods, probabilistic number theory)

In particular, I don't understand why Erdos has his own section - a great number theorist certainly, but probably not one of the three most significant contributors as this article suggests. In general, I feel that no sections should be people oriented - the article would be better focused if we concentrated on the mathematics, giving proper attribution and then people can follow up on those links if they want to see more what an individual has contributed.

Thoughts welcome! I'd like to know if anyone else is interested in the development of this article. Joth (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure whether the Green-Tao theorem deserves to be called a major breakthrough in analytic number theory, rather than in additive combinatorics, say. Most of the 'traditional' analytic number theory is adapted from the Goldston-Yildirim work on small gaps between the primes, so perhaps this is a better result to mention. Joth (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joth on this one. Garald (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Analytic number theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523061451/http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/1859_manuscript/ to http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/1859_manuscript/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.T.Bell: Men of Math chapter on Jacobi says that Jacobi made a hobby out of applying elliptic functions to number theory. E.g., Jacobi re-proved Lagrange's theorem and improved on it by saying in HOW MANY WAYS every positive integer was a sum of four squares. Is Bell right? How else did Jacobi apply elliptic functions to number theory?

'It is well known for its results on prime numbers (involving the Prime Number Theorem and Riemann zeta function) and additive number theory (such as the Goldbach conjecture and Waring's problem).' is a bit muddled. The Goldbach conjecture isn't a result! 31.52.254.181 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]