Talk:Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes

message: Vis a vis the recent additions and reversions, I can't make sense of the assertion that a comic illustrating the divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes isn't relevant to an article about proofs of the divergence of the reciprocals of the primes.  And unless the 'in popular culture' section is turning into a laundry list, the notability criterion is typically applied to articles rather than to links between articles.  (Perhaps the reverter meant that the comic itself isn't notable enough for a wikipedia entry?)  However, if an episode of a popular math-themed comic that features a representation of the statement proven doesn't constitute a relevant and notable reference to this topic, I'm left wondering what would qualify.  kraemer (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of people think nothing qualifies. The xkcd is #602; I don't happen to find it very clear. Nonetheless, I think it ought to be included, as one of the very few non-technical references this subject is likely ever to have. I've readded, as an external link; this may get less static. 21:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure I get that comic — the stick guy starts grabbing unit squares corresponding to the primes and then manually squishing them to perform a transformation that's invariant WRT area but fixes the height to be equal to the value of the prime.  He stacks them up and observes that the height won't be  a finite number.  (What a nerd.)  kraemer (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  xkcd comic 

message: The second proof appears in 'Proofs from the Book' and therefore I believe has sufficient notability as a proof in its own right to stay in Wikipedia. However it seems to have become the subject of somebody on the web making it more and more unreadable with references to cardinality and set difference and putting in small subscripts rather than trying for high school level. I believe the proof should be based on the one in the Proof from the Book or in Hardy and Wright which both are  popular and deal with it in straightforward simple terms. Dmcq (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second proof 

message: It's quite weird to see a text on analytic number theory that is using ln instead of log. It's deeply entrenched to use the log notation here, and I have edited the page to reflect this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordiGH (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is still a very amateurish notation, only common with undergraduates. The arguments are clearly real, the distinction with complex numbers doesn't matter. I have again reverted to log notation as any text in analytic number theory would write it. JordiGH (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ln vs log 

message: Euler's proof: I suppressed the part of the argument involving an inequality, and which is not included in Euler's proof.
"A variation": I erased this "proof" altogether. It appears to be  an unpublished and unsourced modern variation of Euler's already questionable argument, and even more questionable as it involves in addition inequalities between infinite quantities. If it had been an ancient published argument, it could have been reproduced here, but as a modern one, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Sapphorain (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppressions related to the "first" proof