Timeline for Is there a lower bound for the first non-trivial sequence of consecutive integers where each of the first $n$ primes is a least prime factor
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 23, 2013 at 17:55 | answer | added | The Masked Avenger | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 23, 2013 at 17:40 | vote | accept | Larry Freeman | ||
| Dec 23, 2013 at 17:39 | comment | added | Larry Freeman | Masked Avenger, you are right. It should be $x=90$. I added detail on why I consider $x=4$ as trivial. @Gerry Myerson, I added more details on distinguishing between trivial and non-trivial. Thanks for your comments! | |
| Dec 23, 2013 at 17:35 | history | edited | Larry Freeman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Made a typo. Added details in response to comments.
|
| Dec 23, 2013 at 16:48 | answer | added | Mark Lewko | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 23, 2013 at 16:48 | comment | added | The Masked Avenger | In fact, with 89 in your example, I think it does not work at all. You might try a formal definition along with a few more examples. | |
| Dec 23, 2013 at 16:47 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Not clear to me how you distinguish trivial from non-trivial. Also, you introduce notation $j(n)$ without defining it. | |
| Dec 23, 2013 at 16:40 | comment | added | The Masked Avenger | Why use $x=84$ when $x=4$ works? | |
| Dec 23, 2013 at 13:29 | history | asked | Larry Freeman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |