Talk:List of zeta functions

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Disabiguation?[edit]

Does anyone (besides me) think it might be better to redirect this page to Riemann zeta-function and turn the current article into a disambig page? -- Taku (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of zeta function[edit]

It appears that there's an inconsistency about the spelling of "zeta function". The article titles for zeta functions (general and examples) are all spelled without a hyphen, but the wikilinks have all been altered to have a hyphen: zeta-function. In my experience the hyphen is rare, at best, and I don't see any reason to have it in the articles; it only makes the wikilinks more complicated. Any objection to changing them? Zaslav (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for de-disambiguation.[edit]

This page does not seem to be an ambiguous topic at all, since all of the links are partial title matches which, if the lede is to be trusted, are merely types of the thing described by the lede. In other words, this is a list of zeta functions, not a list of terms unrelated but for the fact that they share the exact same name (as with Mercury, the planet, and Mercury, the automobile, or Phoenix, the city, and Phoenix, the mythological bird. I would hope that with this many possible meanings, professionals describing a thing on the list would tend to use the full name. I would propose therefore that this either be converted into an article discussing in greater detail what a zeta function is, and how all the things on the list fall into that category, or that this page be moved to List of zeta functions and the entries on the list formatted into a table with additional information about their utility, date of introduction, and the like. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either sounds good. Better would be an article about zeta functions in general but that would be hard to source. Deltahedron (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Spectral zeta function is a redirect to Zeta function (operator), which is in this list as Zeta function of an operator. It seems to me that having the redirect link in the list adds value, so I added it, but it has now been removed again [1] as "duplicates entry already present". (Of course it does not actually duplicate the entry but points to the same article.) Currently the list has Mordell–Tornheim zeta-function which redirects to Multiple zeta function, also in the list, but this has not been removed. So, is the list more valuable with or without these redirects? Deltahedron (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should only have one entry per linked article, unless a redirect goes to a section rather than a whole article, but maybe the entry should list alternative names or topics which are covered by the same article. Also, the "Zeta function of an operator" entry is problematic in a different way: according to MOS:DAB, we aren't supposed to have piped links in a disambiguation page. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not a disambiguation page, it's a list. Deltahedron (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right, sorry. So MOS:DAB doesn't apply. Still, I think if we have links to one article, they should be in one place. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta function of an incidence algebra[edit]

The question has been asked [2] in an edit summary, referring to removal of the line "Zeta function of an incidence algebra, a function that maps every interval of a poset to the constant value 1" is the incidence algebra one really analogous to Riemann, or just written using the same greek letter? The answer is not quite simple. The zeta function in an incidence algebra, and its inverse, the Möbius function (combinatorics), generalise the arithmetic functions regarded as functions on the poset of positive integers ordered by divisibility, and these in turn relate as formal Dirichlet series to the Riemann zeta function and so forth, the link being Dirichlet convolution. Deltahedron (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was assuming it wasn't since it didn't look anything like a holomorphic complex function, but I guess I was mistaken. So maybe it should be included in the main list after all? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a genuine connexion. Deltahedron (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Single suggestion disambig template?[edit]

Most new wikilinks to here should be redirected to Riemann zeta function, like a disambiguation page. However, I'm not suggesting we change back to a disambiguation page -- this is mostly a note to myself to check for existing templates that might suggest this that perhaps works with Popups and other semi-automated link repairers without marking the whole page as a disambiguation page. (In fact, in the time I took to write this up I probably could have located the template, if it exists.) Mark Hurd (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean {{sia}}? I just added that one. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reality of Zeta Function?[edit]

I wonder if zeta function is true. Like zeta function speaks: 1+4+9+.....=0=zeta(-2) do you think this is valid? Further no matter what negative number you choose; it will be zero. Is that reality? IshanBanjara07 (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for philosophical maunderings. Comments here should be only about improvements to the article based on reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]