This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

"The Maclaurin series coefficients of F increase in absolute value until they reach their maximum at the 40th term of -1.753 x 1017. By the 109th term they have dropped below one in absolute value." For what value of z? (In the former case, I calculate z must be (about) 38.8; and the latter, the value is certainly not the same ...)

What value of z <it>are</it> we talking about here?

It is also worth noting that:

${\displaystyle \ {\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\rm {Riesz(z/n^{2})=z*exp(-z)}}}.}$

See Riesz's original paper ...

Reading the original paper by Riesz, it is necessary to beware of his non-standard usage, especially in respect of variable in the Mellin transform - which is idiosyncratic, and not in conformity with modern usage! Hair Commodore (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Aside of that, Riesz's French is itself, to say the least, idiosyncratic! Reading it is hard work, indeed. Hair Commodore (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Indeed, a careful reading of the paper shows thAt it was almost certainly put together from two drafts,written in slightly different notations. Hair Commodore (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since writing the above, I have acquired a copy of Riesz's ''Collected Papers. I find that his German is also - to say the least - odd.Hair Commodore (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is one other apparent oddity in the paper: an apparntly "hidden" refernce to a monograph by Ernst Leonard Lindelöf - when Riesz refers to «D'après le ealcul des résidus» in a context where it makes little sense. The monograph by Lindelöf is the only thing I can think of to explain it! Hair Commodore (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Riesz's word «or» is a kind of "rather", a bit like «d'ailleurs» - to put it another way. 81.102.15.200 (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (and I hope that this is both accurate and helpful!)Reply

THere's a much more recent contribution to the function at [1]. Perhaps, this should be included in the main article? It is quite interesting, from several points of view. Hair Commodore (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I may as well add that it's possible to read the original paper online at [2] Hair Commodore (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

In [3] Stefano Beltraminelli and Danilo Merlini introduced a generalization of the Riesz function. (They call the pehnomenon they describe the "Riesz-Hardy-Littlewood wave".)They show by calculation that for a range of parameters many examples of their generalization (including the original Riesz function) oscillate for large positive real argument. (Just as might be expected of functions dedfined as these are.) I hope that this is of interest insofaras it connects directly with the Riemann Hypothesis! Hair Commodore (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article has only three references. Three of them (one of them from Riesz himself!) don't refer to "the Riesz function" but rather to "Riesz's function" or "a function considered by Riesz". There is no "Riesz function" at Mathworld.

"Riesz function" must be an invention in this article. It cannot be right to find a random function in some paper, say by Gauss, and just create an article "Gauss function" on wikipedia.

Also, I didn't see the notation "Riesz(x)" anywhere except this article. The original paper uses "F(x)". "Riesz(x)" is another invention in the article.

Plus, what is "Riemann Hypthesis".

Finally, how is it that for large x, A(x) = B? Shouldn't there be big-O notation or something? Doubledork (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply