Timeline for a new conjecture about prime maximal gaps [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 20, 2013 at 13:11 | comment | added | Wenlong DU | @Gerry Myerson Yes, thank you very much. | |
| Jul 20, 2013 at 12:43 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Now posted to m.se, math.stackexchange.com/questions/447999/… | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 1:57 | comment | added | stankewicz | What then does "close to 1" mean? How close? | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 1:52 | history | edited | Wenlong DU | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
got a real qustion that "Has anyone a clue how to prove or disprove the above conjecture".
|
| Jun 22, 2013 at 1:19 | comment | added | Wenlong DU | @Steven Landsburg: $\max_{p_{n+1}\leqslant N }(p_{n+1}-p_{n})\approx logN(logN-2loglogN)+2$ means that $E=\frac{logN(logN-2loglogN)+2}{\max_{p_{n+1}\leqslant N}(p_{n+1}-p_{n})}\approx 1$. "E" is close to 1, but it is not always equal to 1. For example, E=09.5, E=0.98, E=1.02 or E=1.04, and so on. So we can proof that $$\limsup_n \frac{p_{n+1} - p_n}{(\log p_n)^2} \geq 1$$ | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 15:58 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | What does "almost equal to" mean? | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 12:24 | comment | added | Wenlong DU | @Per Alexandersson: Thank you for you advice. It means a lot for me. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 12:24 | comment | added | Wenlong DU | @Steven Landsburg: This is my first time asking a question in mathoverflow, I am sorry. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 12:23 | comment | added | Wenlong DU | @The User: "≈" means "almost equal to". But, $\max_{p_{n+1}\leqslant N }(p_{n+1}-p_{n})\approx logN(logN-2loglogN)+2$ do not mean that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\max_{p_{n+1}\leqslant N}(p_{n+1}-p_{n})}{ logN(logN-2loglogN)+2}=1$$. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 6:12 | comment | added | Loïc Teyssier | Who upvotes this post?? | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 20:56 | history | closed |
Steven Landsburg Andy Putman Felipe Voloch Yemon Choi Zev Chonoles |
not a real question | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:42 | comment | added | The User | What does ≈ mean? | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:36 | comment | added | Andy Putman | This doesn't seem like a real question, just a random speculation backed up by essentially no evidence. I've voted to close. | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:29 | answer | added | user9072 | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:28 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | How can we possibly tell if your conjecture is a good one or a bad one without any description of the heuristics that led you to it? And where is the mathematical question here? | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:27 | comment | added | Per Alexandersson | I can't understand your table. Is B=N? What type of answer do you seek? If it seems to hold for all really large N, then yes, otherwise, clearly no. Mathoverflow is not a place to "publish" conjectures, but to seek advice on problems. A better question would be "has anyone seen a similar estimate before?" or, "This inequality seems to hold, is there any reason why this should be true?" | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:14 | history | asked | Wenlong DU | CC BY-SA 3.0 |