Talk:Harald Helfgott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

250[edit]

250 years are mentioned. Serious work on the Goldbach problem only started more recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.105.72 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. Genuine progress was first made by Hardy and Littlewood, a little under 100 years ago. Edit if you wish. Garald (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harald Helfgott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation[edit]

Hi -

Can someone remove the now unsourced statement on Giving What We Can? I doubt it belongs here. Garald (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Obviously my concerns are (a) privacy, (b) proper emphasis (the statement certainly does not belong in the lede of a brief biographical article), (c) (least important for me, but possibly most important for Wikipedia) following policy (not making statements supported only by primary sources). I see now that there is some anti-GWWC, anti-consequentialist/anti-utilitarian talk in the media. I am not trying to avoid that at all - in fact I would be glad to support GWWC, Effective Altruism, etc., even more publicly. It is simply that (a)-(c) are valid. Garald (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]