Timeline for Primes as uncorrelated random variables [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2018 at 14:35 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jul 28, 2018 at 18:46 | |||||
| Apr 18, 2015 at 17:19 | history | edited | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
some links and some formatting
|
| Apr 18, 2015 at 15:13 | vote | accept | Sylvain JULIEN | ||
| Apr 17, 2015 at 8:53 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Apr 17, 2015 at 18:15 | |||||
| Apr 17, 2015 at 8:14 | history | closed |
Henry Cohn Lucia Joonas Ilmavirta Alex Degtyarev Dima Pasechnik |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 8:13 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | natural numbers form a probability space, this is all well-understood etc etc. I don't see how this can be not well-founded, unless it's understood in a non-mathematical way. | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 7:28 | history | edited | Sylvain JULIEN | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Apr 17, 2015 at 6:48 | history | edited | Sylvain JULIEN | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 314 characters in body
|
| Apr 17, 2015 at 5:54 | history | edited | Sylvain JULIEN | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Apr 17, 2015 at 5:45 | history | edited | Sylvain JULIEN | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 671 characters in body
|
| Apr 17, 2015 at 1:54 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 17, 2015 at 8:15 | |||||
| Apr 17, 2015 at 1:01 | answer | added | Fan Zheng | timeline score: 7 | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 0:52 | comment | added | JMP | pretty much, it does give a bound though | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 0:50 | comment | added | Asvin | I guess he had a problem with the second part of the statement, we have no idea what the conditional probability of $p+2$ being prime is, given $p$ prime... | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 0:42 | comment | added | JMP | given the set {1,...,n} there are n/log(n) primes in it, according to the Prime Number Theorem. Therefore the chance that you pick a prime is 1/log(n). | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 0:40 | comment | added | paul garrett | @JonMarkPerry, :) the point is that the notion of "probability" of primality is not well-founded, although an extremely intuitive/engaging idea. :) That it is not (at this time in history) something that generates causality, that is, that gives true proof, is disappointing, but a contingent fact. | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 0:34 | comment | added | JMP | @paulgarrett; you mean the first statement is true, the second not so true? | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 0:31 | comment | added | paul garrett | @JonMarkPerry, it's not that I have an objection to your remark, but that the terseness of it might mislead naive people. That is, the ramifications of "true facts" are often subtler than people generally understand, etc. That is, the limits of heuristics are not-at-all widely understood, and, in fact, I do strongly claim, there is no wide-spread procedure for distinguishing good heuristics from bad, etc. Rhyming is not truth. Catchiness is not truth. Yet we do hope (as humans) that such stuff does correctly suggest truth, etc. That's all I meant... | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 0:26 | comment | added | JMP | @paulgarrett; what's wrong with it? - it gives the answer given | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 0:13 | comment | added | paul garrett | @JonMarkPerry, I hope you are being a little bit facetious, or else you are possibly misleading the questioner or other naive souls. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 23:41 | comment | added | JMP | the probability that n is prime is ~ 1/log(n). The probability that n,n+2 are prime is therefore ~ 1/log(n)^2 | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 23:38 | answer | added | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 22:57 | comment | added | GH from MO | The Wikipedia article does not use the word "proof" in that context. So the quotation mark is misleading here. Without the quotation mark, it would be equally misleading, so I suggest you change the first sentence. A more serious problem with your post is that it does not contain a well-formulated mathematical question. To clarify: no proof of Goldbach's conjecture would consider the primes random variables, because they are not random variables. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 22:50 | history | edited | Sylvain JULIEN | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 16, 2015 at 22:35 | history | asked | Sylvain JULIEN | CC BY-SA 3.0 |