Talk:Number theory: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Harald Helfgott
No edit summary
imported>Harald Helfgott
No edit summary
Line 18: Line 18:


I have started what should remain a brief history section. Edit away. The modern period has not been done yet. [[User:Harald Helfgott|Harald Helfgott]] 06:43, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
I have started what should remain a brief history section. Edit away. The modern period has not been done yet. [[User:Harald Helfgott|Harald Helfgott]] 06:43, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
- there should probably be a smooth transition to "Subfields" towards the end of the nineteenth century. [[User:Harald Helfgott|Harald Helfgott]] 08:15, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 07:15, 22 June 2007


Article Checklist for "Number theory"
Workgroup category or categories Mathematics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? Yes
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by --AlekStos 09:45, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





The introduction is a little too focused on number systems, and then mixes them up with all other things. Perhaps we should start with a historical introduction - then an enumeration of the main areas and problems of study? Harald Helfgott 13:55, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm inclined to agree. The initial comment about C.F. Gauss seems out of place in an encyclopedia but, just as importantly, unrelated to the rest of the article. What follows is basically a hodge-podge of ideas presented without any context. In fact, I think it's probably a good idea to just blank the article and start over. A historical introduction may be the way to go, but there are other possibilities, such as outlining some of the main areas of number theory: algebraic number fields, zeta-functions and analytic methods, quadratic forms and lattices (along the lines of Minkowski), p-adic fields and local methods, algebraic geometry (elliptic curves and abelian varieties), and maybe a bit about the Langlands program. Of course, the approaches aren't mutually exclusive: I think Scharlau and Opolka ("From Fermat to Minkowski") does a masterful job of weaving together a historical account and a cohesive theoretical framework. I completely wore out one copy of the book as a grad student. Greg Woodhouse 14:20, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
I have effectively blanked the article. Some text was good and could be reused, but, as it will be available as part of previous versions for at least some time, no harm has been done. Let us see what we can do. Do you want to get started? The overall plan of the Wikipedia article seems sensible. I particularly liked its history section - but then that probably deserves its own article. Harald Helfgott 06:49, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

I have started what should remain a brief history section. Edit away. The modern period has not been done yet. Harald Helfgott 06:43, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

- there should probably be a smooth transition to "Subfields" towards the end of the nineteenth century. Harald Helfgott 08:15, 22 June 2007 (CDT)