Timeline for $p$-simple integers from between $n$ and $n+p-1$
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2016 at 7:21 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | @SylvainJULIEN -- there are trade-offs. (The symbol $\ \Leftarrow:\Rightarrow\ $ appears all over MO in my notes around here). | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 6:19 | comment | added | Sylvain JULIEN | When I draft my (rarer and rarer) ideas on a sheet of paper, I usually use colon-leftrightarrow for the same purpose. But yours is much better, as it is symmetrical. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 1:43 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | Indeed, search engines are very far from perfect. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 1:41 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | @SylvainJULIEN, thank you. Yes, I've introduced the symbol $\ \Leftarrow:\Rightarrow\ $ (and several other) some years ago. Perhaps search engines can find them (however, the search engines are far from perfect). | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 1:37 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | @GerryMyerson - thank you! (I am dense). Yes, it's mine. | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 22:52 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | I think @Sylvain is referring to that arrow-colon-arrow notation in the first line of the body of the question. | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 21:06 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | BTW, my comment where I answered the very first comment by Geard (before there were other comments) has vanished virtually immediately, and it's not there (or at least I cannot see it). | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 21:01 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | @SylvainJULIEN, I am not seeing the quoted phrase anymore anywhere but in your comment. If I used it then indeed I made it up. | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 18:52 | comment | added | Sylvain JULIEN | +1 for the nice notation for "is defined as equivalent to" I had never seen before. Is it yours? | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 18:40 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 15, 2016 at 23:54 | vote | accept | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | ||
| Jun 15, 2016 at 23:52 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | @GerhardPaseman -- indeed, your p=13 and n=114 is a counterexample; you're welcome to post it to make the thread easier to read. (The example is economic since 114-1 as well as 114+13 are both primes). | |
| Jun 15, 2016 at 23:41 | history | edited | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
A more explicit 'for all" quantifier.
|
| Jun 15, 2016 at 23:39 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | @GerryMyerson - yes, for every p and every p... I thought that I've written according to a convention which means this: F(x) means for every x: F(x). But I will make it clearer; indeed, it's always better to make things clearer. Thank you, Gerry. | |
| Jun 15, 2016 at 23:07 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | I suppose you meant, for every integer $n$ and for every prime $p$ there exists etc., etc. | |
| Jun 15, 2016 at 23:05 | history | edited | Gerry Myerson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| Jun 15, 2016 at 22:58 | answer | added | GH from MO | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jun 15, 2016 at 22:56 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | In particular, p=13 and n=114 is a small counterexample. The previous comment shows that n+p-1 can be replaced by n +Cp for any constant C. Gerhard "Has A Preprint About It" Paseman, 2016.06.15. | |
| Jun 15, 2016 at 21:57 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Nope. Large gaps between primes. Gerhard "Should I Mention Jacobsthal's Function?" Paseman, 2016.06.15. | |
| Jun 15, 2016 at 21:44 | history | edited | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
cosmetic
|
| Jun 15, 2016 at 21:38 | history | asked | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | CC BY-SA 3.0 |