Timeline for A result on prime numbers
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 21, 2010 at 6:38 | vote | accept | Roupam Ghosh | ||
| Jan 2, 2010 at 1:03 | vote | accept | Roupam Ghosh | ||
| Jan 21, 2010 at 6:38 | |||||
| Jan 1, 2010 at 19:56 | comment | added | Leonid Positselski | OMG, I did not realize that I was commenting on a version of a paper that was not yet permanently saved. The author replaced it, and now there are no traces left of what I have commented on in my answer. I should have known better than falling prey to that. | |
| Jan 1, 2010 at 19:43 | comment | added | Ben Weiss | @rpg16: Looking at the new answer, I don't think it is correct. You do correctly move the $p_n$ term inside the log, but now this ratio to the $p_n$ can end up being quite large (I don't think the limit is 1, in fact I think--but am no expert on this subject--that there are results on what this limit is). So your next step replacing it all by a 1 is probably incorrect. | |
| Jan 1, 2010 at 19:32 | comment | added | Leonid Positselski | @Ilya: unfortunately I perceive very little point in continuing the discussion. Let me simply state that my answer applies to the prepint arxiv:0912.4646 version 4 and not to any later or other version. | |
| Jan 1, 2010 at 19:17 | comment | added | Ilya Nikokoshev | Leonid above correctly says that you are now computing $1^\infty$: you can't just claim it's equal to 1. @Leonid, I think it's more reasonable to move discussion here. @rpg16, once you arrive to understanding with Leonid, please accept his answer! | |
| Jan 1, 2010 at 19:03 | comment | added | Roupam Ghosh | check the updated paper :) arxiv.org/pdf/0912.4646 Cheers!!! | |
| Jan 1, 2010 at 18:59 | history | answered | Leonid Positselski | CC BY-SA 2.5 |