Timeline for The density of the set of non-pathological primes
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 12, 2019 at 17:56 | history | edited | Gerhard Paseman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1349 characters in body
|
| Dec 9, 2019 at 22:45 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Also I think Will's comment has a phrase that should instead read "the density of non pathological primes". Gerhard "What A Difference Non Makes" Paseman, 2019.12.09. | |
| Dec 9, 2019 at 22:34 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | My question 221357 speaks to the growth of P_n(q) in general, and points to notes of Jameson which give more info on divisors of P_n(2). Gerhard "Going Link Lite For Now" Paseman, 2019.12.09. | |
| Dec 9, 2019 at 22:18 | comment | added | Will Sawin | I guess this shows the density of pathological primes is no greater than the density of the numbers $P_n(2)$, which I guess grow roughly like $2^{\phi(n)}$ and thus almost exponentially. More realistically, if $P_n(2)$ has $\approx \frac{1}{n}$ chance of being prime then there should only be $\log \log \log X$ non-pathological primes up to $X$. | |
| Dec 9, 2019 at 21:54 | history | edited | Gerhard Paseman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Dec 9, 2019 at 21:36 | history | answered | Gerhard Paseman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |