Timeline for What is the crucial difference the Maynard/Tao approach and Goldston-Pintz-Yildirim that extends to prime k-tuples with $k>2$
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2013 at 0:11 | comment | added | Stanley Yao Xiao | Thanks to both of you (blunt or not) for pointing out my error. Eric's answer is definitely much better and was helpful to me as well. | |
| Nov 24, 2013 at 0:11 | history | edited | Stanley Yao Xiao | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected a fundamentally incorrect observation
|
| Nov 23, 2013 at 23:48 | comment | added | blabler | I feel I should articulate less gently what Eric already said (for those skimming quickly): The above "answer" is completely wrong. The main difference lies in the choice of weights as explained in Eric's post. | |
| Nov 23, 2013 at 21:07 | comment | added | Eric Naslund | Summing $\theta(n)-\rho\log(3N)$ versus $\chi_P(n)-\rho$ doesn't affect the argument. The two counting functions mentioned above are essentially the same, except for the weights. The major difference lies in the choice of $\Lambda_R(n;\mathcal{H}_k,l)^2$ and $w_n$. | |
| Nov 23, 2013 at 19:12 | vote | accept | Anurag Sahay | ||
| Nov 24, 2013 at 8:32 | |||||
| Nov 23, 2013 at 18:47 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | By the way, all of this is nicely explained in Maynard's preprint. | |
| Nov 23, 2013 at 17:57 | history | answered | Stanley Yao Xiao | CC BY-SA 3.0 |