Timeline for Is the given expression, monotonically increasing or decreasing with increasing x?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2015 at 15:59 | answer | added | Jose L. Perez | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 18:14 | vote | accept | Roupam Ghosh | ||
| Jan 21, 2010 at 18:13 | vote | accept | Roupam Ghosh | ||
| Jan 21, 2010 at 18:14 | |||||
| Jan 21, 2010 at 18:10 | vote | accept | Roupam Ghosh | ||
| Jan 21, 2010 at 18:13 | |||||
| Jan 21, 2010 at 17:50 | answer | added | David E Speyer | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 4:56 | comment | added | Roupam Ghosh | @Pete Go here -> tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/174/on-my-posts | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 4:52 | vote | accept | Roupam Ghosh | ||
| Jan 21, 2010 at 18:10 | |||||
| Jan 21, 2010 at 4:35 | answer | added | David Hansen | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 4:19 | comment | added | Zev Chonoles | I'm quite sure that's not what Ramanujan (or anyone else) will mean by $\pi(x)$ - after all, how would we be able to choose the "right" one (we can always tweak a given one in between the primes)? | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 4:18 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Roupam Ghosh: It is fine to be a learner. However, some of your behavior is alienating the research community: (i) not taking time to understand when people point out errors in your reasoning. [(i)' You have asked questions containing significantly flawed reasoning, which has been pointed out and corrected by several MOers, including me. You have never upvoted an answer, accepted an answer, or even clearly acknowledged your mistakes.] (ii) You have posted 7 versions of a paper to the arxiv, most recently tonight, on a subject you have not mastered. This is not what the arxiv is for. | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 4:13 | comment | added | Roupam Ghosh |
@Zev: maybe that $\pi(x)$ denotes an approx. smooth function instead of the real stepwise function... do you mean that Zev?
|
|
| Jan 21, 2010 at 4:07 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | (In Berndt's quote, "formal" is being used in the sense of "formal power series", not "formal proof" -- i.e., ignoring all issues of convergence.) Is it even clear that the given series is convergent? | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 4:04 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @rpg16: Ramanujan's Notebooks are preserved for posterity because there are hundreds or thousands of intriguing formulas and conjectures in them. However, this is not to say that everything that appears in his notebooks is true, or even mathematically meaningful. If you read Berndt's commentary, he makes it clear that this is not a true mathematical statement but one which is interesting from the viewpoint of giving an insight into Ramanujan's thought processes: "Of course Entry 8 is only a formal statement, but let us speculate how Ramanujan might have argued." | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 4:02 | comment | added | Zev Chonoles | At first I just noticed the difference between rpg16's equation and the cited one and pointed it out, but immediately after that I realized that even with $\sim$ it's not true, so it must have been a Ramanujan-style statement. | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:59 | comment | added | Zev Chonoles | Exactly what I was about to say :) | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:59 | comment | added | Jonas Meyer | rpg16, only Ramanujan can get away with that. | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:58 | comment | added | Jonas Meyer | It doesn't bother me that you are new at all; I am a learner, too. (Besides, you shouldn't let me stop you.) I appreciate that you are responding to comments and working toward making the question make sense. | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:57 | history | edited | Roupam Ghosh | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 138 characters in body
|
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:55 | comment | added | Roupam Ghosh | Zev, you might check Bruce C. Berndt's "Ramanujan's NoteBooks Part IV" page 123, equation 10.16, which gives = sign instead of $\sim$ | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:51 | comment | added | Roupam Ghosh | Zev, I have edited it... ty for pointing that out :) | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:51 | history | edited | Roupam Ghosh | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:49 | comment | added | Roupam Ghosh | Meyer, thanks for pointing that out... I am just a learner, (a noob you might say)... If that bothers you then I can't do anything... | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:48 | comment | added | Zev Chonoles | $\sim$ and $=$ are very different! | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:47 | comment | added | Roupam Ghosh | Its Ramanujan's formula... check this Equation (10) mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeCountingFunction.html | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:43 | comment | added | Jonas Meyer | The poster has a unique kind of calculus. See for example mathoverflow.net/questions/11016/… | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:41 | comment | added | Zev Chonoles | Um, unless I'm missing something here, isn't the derivative of $\pi(x)$ equal to 0 for everything except prime numbers, and undefined at primes themselves? | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:25 | history | edited | Roupam Ghosh | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 180 characters in body
|
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:24 | comment | added | Roupam Ghosh |
oh ok... This is the derivative of the prime counting function $\pi(x)$ w.r.t. x
|
|
| Jan 21, 2010 at 3:12 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | If you asked someone this in the flesh, would you not normally explain what you'd tried already, or where the question came from? -1 for lack of context, or indication of your train of prior thought | |
| Jan 21, 2010 at 2:55 | history | asked | Roupam Ghosh | CC BY-SA 2.5 |