Comments on: On the Möbius function

By: Anon Till

Anon Till — Sun, 10 May 2015 23:30:08 +0000

There were errors and they were pointed out but they were removed by someone once the post was edited (a process which I find rather rude). "Go ****" yourself.

By: mixedmath

mixedmath — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:22:20 +0000

Although I might not use the same terminology as vzn, I'm also surprised at the response. Some prefer terse exposition, some prefer wordy exposition.

Seems like a reasonable post to me!

By: vzn

vzn — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:12:38 +0000

in regard to the negative comments, nobody has actually pointed out any errors. those who dont like the blog can write their own or go **** themselves.

By: Thomas Andrews

Thomas Andrews — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 02:33:51 +0000

Yes, you might want to define multiplicative function.

By: Ilmari Karonen

Ilmari Karonen — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 12:32:25 +0000

For Theorem 0, it might be useful to briefly define what a multiplicative function is. Especially since there are two different definitions, and the number-theoretical definition meant here is not quite obvious from the name.

(Of course, if you've taken a few courses on number theory, you'll likely know the definition already. But in that case, you're probably already familiar with the Möbius function, too. In fact, at least for me, I'm pretty sure I first learned the definition of a multiplicative function in the context of learning about the Möbius function.)

By: Sawarnik

Sawarnik — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 07:25:31 +0000

Exactly.

By: Anon Till

Anon Till — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 00:42:24 +0000

This article looks hasty and poorly written. There is no motivation to a majority of the text and no exposition is given. There are some places where words are misspelled, letters are missing, or mathematics is off. It reads more like it has been copied from a textbook than actually written for a blog.