Timeline for Update for 2015: least prime of form nq+1, with q prime?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2022 at 16:27 | comment | added | Bruno | I have no math reputation, still I asked J. Oesterlé. The claimed result is a typo, cf my comment mathoverflow.net/questions/80865/…. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Sep 11, 2015 at 8:07 | comment | added | joro | @WillJagy Why not try to debug the printsay? Hypothetically (flawed) proof may really exist. Maybe someone of sufficient math reputation spam Oesterlé? | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 20:09 | comment | added | Will Jagy | Oh, and directly after his message, I put a reply calling his attention to this question. | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 20:07 | comment | added | Will Jagy | Yeah, I looked briefly at both joro's recent questions after his message to me. | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 20:06 | comment | added | Will Jagy | hmmm... not exactly hearsay, printsay perhaps | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 20:06 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @WillJagy there was a related question by joro (where $q$ is not prime but a primorial number (the product of the first $k$ primes). There, it seems that the observed result is even better than $q \log^2 q,$ more like $q \log q.$ | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 19:55 | comment | added | Will Jagy | Right, I guess I did not make that clear. Either way, I was entirely reporting hearsay, I figured a new question might get traction with people who have some idea how to do this stuff themselves, and that has happened. | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 19:51 | history | answered | Igor Rivin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |