Talk:Mertens function

hey

are normal people supposed to understand this??? HUH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.251.131 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality issues

I added the additional citations tag because there is a single citation to support the numerous claims made in the article. The article purports many mathematical statements to be true and first proved by so-and-so, without citing a single source for verification. So, methinks some more references are needed.

I also added the cleanup tag to the first section, because it is poorly written and ugly. The LaTeX math is improperly rendered, punctuation is omitted (or overused), etc. I'll clean up a bit of this myself, but more work will probably be needed. ----User:Khinchin's constant —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Merten's function was computed up to 10^16 in 1996

Deléglise, M. and Rivat, J. "Computing the Summation of the Möbius Function." Experiment. Math. 5, 291-295, 1996. http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&id=pdf_1&handle=euclid.em/1047565447 Kstueve (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't compute it "up to" 10^16. They computed isolated values and the largest was for 10^16. Mertens function#Calculation is for computations of all values up to the given limit. The 1996 work may be worth mentioning in the article anyway if the difference is explained. Feel free to do so. Here is a 2003 Kotnik and van de Lune source for the current table: http://oai.cwi.nl/oai/asset/4116/04116D.pdf. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.4890v1.pdf from 2011 gives isolated values up to 10^36. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:3316:146A:2E33:4FC5:8340 (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]