User kdr - MathOverflowmost recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-19T09:19:09Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/user/10792http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/90523/on-the-least-prime-in-arithmetic-progressionsOn the least prime in arithmetic progressionskdr2012-03-08T00:32:33Z2012-03-13T14:46:12Z
<p>My question concerns the least prime (denoted $p(a, q)$) in the arithmetic progression $a \pmod q$ where $a$ and $q$ are coprime. Quite a time ago Linnik demonstrated that
$$p(a, q) \ll q^L$$
for some absolute constant $L$. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnik%2527s_theorem" rel="nofollow">Wiki page</a> for this theorem lists a number of papers that estimate $L$ with the most recent result by Xylouris who proved that $L \leq 5.2$.</p>
<p>It is also known that the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis implies
$$p(a, q) \ll (q\log q)^2 \text{,}$$
while in 1978, Heath-Brown conjectured even tighter bound:
$$p(a, q) \ll q(\log q)^2 \text{.}$$
I'm wondering whether this last bound, if true (it is still an open problem), implies something non-trivial about $L$-functions?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/45855/what-is-the-current-status-of-agrawals-conjectureWhat is the current status of Agrawal's conjecture?kdr2010-11-12T18:38:01Z2010-11-30T09:00:57Z
<p>In their famous 'Primes is in P' paper Agrawal, Kayal and Saxena stated the following conjecture:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If for coprime integers $n$ and $r$ the equality $(X-1)^n = X^n - 1$ holds in $\mathbb{Z}_n[X]/(X^r-1)$ then either $n$ is prime or $n^2 = 1 \pmod{r}$.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If true this would give a beautiful characterization of primes that could be easily transformed into a fast ($O(\log^{3+\epsilon}{n})$) and deterministic primality test.</p>
<p>Shortly after publishing 'Primes is in P' Hendrik Lenstra noticed that the conjecture may not be valid for $r=5$ and $n$ of the very special form (see <a href="http://www.aimath.org/WWN/primesinp/primesinp.pdf" rel="nofollow">Lenstra's and Pomerance's note</a>, p.30). It was unknown whether any such $n$ existed but Carl Pomerance gave a heuristic argument convincing that there should be infinitely many $n$'s sharing these, apparently rare, properties. I'm not aware of any strict proof for this.</p>
<p>It may also happen that the conjecture in a modified form (if we restrict $r$ to be greater than $\log{n}$) can be still true.</p>
<p>Martin Mačaj (see <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.144.7953&rep=rep1&type=pdf" rel="nofollow">Some remarks and questions about the AKS
algorithm and related conjecture</a>) gave another version of this conjecture together with a proof that relied on yet another unsolved problem.</p>
<p>Does anyone know if there were any advances in this area in the recent years?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/90523/on-the-least-prime-in-arithmetic-progressions/91084#91084Comment by kdrkdr2012-03-25T21:26:20Z2012-03-25T21:26:20ZThanks to both of you: unknown and Greg. I think I understand. Your arguments sound convincing.