Timeline for Is there a known primitive recursive upper bound on the nth "Zhang prime"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2022 at 7:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ with https://arxiv.org/abs/
|
|
| Dec 13, 2014 at 6:15 | comment | added | Christian Remling | Existence of $C$ (effective or not) is enough to answer the OP's question as posed. | |
| Dec 13, 2014 at 4:34 | comment | added | NAME_IN_CAPS | Also, I think Zhang had instead of $[x,2x]$, an interval something like $[x,x+x/L(x)]$ where $L(x)$ was some power of $\log\log x$ IIRC. Likely Maynard's argument can show the same. | |
| Dec 13, 2014 at 3:35 | comment | added | NAME_IN_CAPS | Does Maynard tell us how "sufficiently large" $x$ must be, or is the result ineffective as stated (one can peel away the exceptional modulus from the large sieve mechanism, but my guess is that Maynard does not do this explicitly)? Or to rephrase more in terms of the original question/answer: is your $C$ effectively computable, or have you just shown the existence of $f(n)$ w/o an explicit function? | |
| Dec 13, 2014 at 3:18 | comment | added | Jason Rute | That was a much better bound than I expected! | |
| Dec 13, 2014 at 3:13 | vote | accept | Jason Rute | ||
| Dec 13, 2014 at 3:09 | history | answered | Jeremy Rouse | CC BY-SA 3.0 |