Talk:Riemann hypothesis

The last time this talk addressed the issue was in March of 2009. This entry still does not adequately describe the Reimann hypothesis to make the actual concept at all understandable to someone not already involved in pure mathematics. There is a lot of terminology specific to people knowledgeable about math that is just jargon, if not gibberish, to children and others. This is a generic and uninformative entry; not a simple one. 19 SEP 2013

Previous Debates about Clarity

Please stop reverting the edits! The version of the page you promote is needlessly complex, and the original one is far better at not confusing new english students/young children. Thankyou! 71.235.109.88 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the language does seem complex. However, it seems in your edit that most of the information itself has been removed in sake of simplicity. May I suggest either a complexity tag on the old article, or a stub tag on the new one? I apologise for the mixup, it's been a long night :) FrancesO (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the main page (Riemann hypothesis) for a day. The (currently protected) version was the result of long editing; it may indeed by more difficult to understand than the original three-sentence article. But the idea would be to improve what is there, and not go back to an earlier version (and lose a lot of work) --Eptalon (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind, that David Hilbert put this on his list of 23 problems (en:Hilbert's problems), about 1910; it is of early 2009 still unresolved; the en:Millennium Prize Problems, a comparable list from the 2000s also list it. So I fear that explaining it all simply will be a difficult thing to do. --Eptalon (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Work" as you put it is pretty much just a summary of the Wikipedia article on the subject matter, and not at all simplified enough for a "simple wiki." If someone really wanted a technical description of it they could go to the actual wikipedia. If someone just wants to get the basic concept, i think the draft I proposed, and since edited, would be far better :) ّ71.235.109.88 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Would it make more sense to merge the Riemann zeta function into this article? It's needed to understand the hypothesis, from what I understand. This would make it easier to understand, and at the same time more informative I believe. FrancesO (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think they are fine (as two different articles). Just imagine someone comes along and adds the mathematics for either. --Eptalon (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eptalon. These are different and should/could have their own pages. We can, for example, put the definition of the Riemann zeta function in this page (does this solves that problem?). πr² 00:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Riemann zeta function, find the exact history there)

Sorry for crude text, I'm not an editor or used with this script. However, I would like to agree with FrancecO. As the zeta function rarely is mentioned without mentioning the hypothesis (and vice versa), these two articles should -in a Simple English Wiki- be combined for an easier understanding of the whole topic.

My short thought, greetings Morten D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.51.35 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If I look at the Zeta-function page at EnWP, , Zeta-functions are also mentioned in conjunction with Dirichlet series (enWP) or the en:Basel Problem.The Basel problem was first stated in 1624, and solved by Leonard Euler in 1744. This is rougly 100-years before Riemann (1824-1884). Dirichlet (1805-1859) was rougly 20 years older than Riemann. Riemann published a paper in 1859, where he used the zeta-function to model the problem; the function itself seems to have been used by Euler beforehand. I think the facts mentioned speak against merging the two articles.--Eptalon (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)