Talk:Riemann Hypothesis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Riemann Hypothesis. This is also a forum for spreading libelous rumors about the article's subject. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

---

The contents of Rieman hypothesis were merged into Riemann Hypothesis and they now redirect here. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.

---

Merge

Is there some way to merge this with the article Riemann hypothesis? --KP CUN 06:26, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think that this should article should be moved to some other math hypothesis or theory. (e.g., "Pythagorean Theorem" appears to be wide open.) This article is good and the Riemann hypothesis is outstanding but I don't think they are compatible. --Hessef 06:56, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Took a shot at it... call me optimistic. I'm afraid I had to erase an entire section to keep it from rambling, but in my opinion that section wasn't terribly funny (and felt a bit like rambling). --Pietro 04:33, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this is a very complex joke on the fact that the Riemann Hypothesis has eluded proof for hundreds of years and thousands of mathemeticians. --Chronarion 14:31, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Haven't been to Uncyclopedia in a while, hence the late revert. Chronarion: I feel your edit, which erased large amounts of funny jokes by MANY people, was a bit rash, especially since you replaced the material with largely factual information which wouldn't be out of place in Wikipedia or Mathworld. Marking it as a "minor edit" wasn't very honest either. Pietro 05:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Norris

Would anyone be offended if I took out the thing about Chuck Norris. It's funny but the humor doesn't seem to have the same tone or character as the rest of the article, which is highly exceptional.