Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 11, 2019 at 10:01 vote accept asad
Jan 14, 2018 at 15:29 comment added asad continue from the previous comment: ... individually are not the same in general.
Jan 14, 2018 at 15:21 comment added asad @GregMartin, For instance with $A_d(x)$, I confuse with other literature such as Halberstam, Greaves, Cojocaru: I see that they define $\mathcal{A}_d=\{a: a\in\mathcal{A},\ a\equiv0(\mod d)\}$, but in "Opera de Cribro" it is defined as $\mathcal{A}_d=\{a_n: a_n\in\mathcal{A},\ n\equiv0(\mod d)\}$. Although the $\bigcup_{i=0}^{d-1}\mathcal{A}_d$ are the same in both definitions but individually are not!
Jan 14, 2018 at 7:00 comment added Greg Martin I'm not referring to context in the book. I'm referring to context in terms of how much you understand already and what's the first thing you don't understand. It's not reasonable to expect us to explain entire pages of a research monograph; you should boil your question down to "here's what I do understand, and here's the first thing I don't understand".
Jan 14, 2018 at 4:48 comment added asad @GregMartin, I uploaded a few pages, you may see it here: docdro.id/H2A9YOC
Jan 13, 2018 at 20:30 answer added GH from MO timeline score: 2
Jan 13, 2018 at 19:24 comment added Greg Martin We need more context to be able to answer your question. What do you know about the symbols $X,A(x),A_d(x),g(p),r_d(x)$ in general? Do you know the relationship between them? Do you know what Friedlander and Iwaniec have said about their purposes?
Jan 13, 2018 at 18:35 history edited asad CC BY-SA 3.0
edited title
Jan 13, 2018 at 18:27 history edited asad CC BY-SA 3.0
added 13 characters in body; edited title
Jan 13, 2018 at 18:14 history edited asad CC BY-SA 3.0
edited title
Jan 13, 2018 at 14:50 history edited asad
edited tags
Jan 13, 2018 at 14:39 history edited asad CC BY-SA 3.0
added 6 characters in body
Jan 13, 2018 at 14:03 history asked asad CC BY-SA 3.0