Timeline for Asymptotic density of k-almost primes
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1 at 14:57 | answer | added | Ofir Gorodetsky | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 1, 2023 at 6:55 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Dec 14, 2022 at 17:43 | history | edited | Charles | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clean up old post
|
| Oct 19, 2014 at 4:54 | vote | accept | Charles | ||
| Feb 4, 2014 at 19:20 | comment | added | Sidharth Ghoshal | Quick comment: is it true then that: $\sum \frac{log(log(x))^{k-1}}{(k-1)!log(x)} = 1$? where k goes from 1 to infinity? | |
| Jan 17, 2014 at 11:20 | answer | added | martin | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 31, 2013 at 2:00 | answer | added | Lucia | timeline score: 16 | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 0:14 | history | edited | Joël | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Observation that an important part of the question has not been answered.
|
| Jul 5, 2013 at 18:17 | history | edited | Charles | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fix links, tighten prose
|
| Apr 27, 2012 at 1:30 | history | edited | Charles | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 32 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2011 at 16:47 | answer | added | Geoffrey Caveney | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 13, 2010 at 14:28 | comment | added | Charles | @Victor: I didn't realize that edits bumped the questions at all, let alone retag-only edits. Once Yemon Choi informed me I stopped immediately. Sorry for any inconvenience. | |
| Sep 13, 2010 at 7:02 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | Actually, for some of us it is a big deal! I mean, more than half the front page is occupied with old questions, vast majority (if not all) of them with accepted answers, and even an odd closed question, which misplaced an equal number (28) of active questions. Is there any chance you can be more considerate and pay attention to the fruits of your labors? | |
| Sep 13, 2010 at 5:58 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Charles: no worries. It happens every now and again, and isn't that big a deal; I'm sure now you know, you can retag as and when you think it's most useful. | |
| Sep 13, 2010 at 5:26 | comment | added | Charles | @Yemon Choi: I didn't know! Thanks for the heads up. | |
| Sep 13, 2010 at 5:15 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | This is off-topic, but since your user page has no contact details this seemed the easiest way to drop you a note. Namely, are you aware that re-tagging or editing a question bumps it to the front page? This means that a drive-by re-tagging tends to flood the front page, which can be a bit annoying regardless of whether the re-tagging is a Good or Bad Thing. (If you know this already, then apologies for wasting your time) | |
| Aug 23, 2010 at 4:23 | answer | added | Charles | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 6:26 | comment | added | Charles | @Victor: I changed the wording somewhat, but this is probably a real philosophical difference here. My hope in asking this question was to find a result like Dusart's, and failing that something close. I do want to emphasize that particular result for that reason: it is the heart of my question. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 6:24 | history | edited | Charles | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Add Montgomery & Vaughan result, partially placate critics
|
| Aug 18, 2010 at 19:10 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | Can you, please, eliminate all instances of the adjective "masterful" from your question? Not only is its utility questionable, it creates an impression that you are trying to promote certain papers. | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 18:22 | answer | added | Micah Milinovich | timeline score: 12 | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 13:53 | comment | added | Charles | I had hoped for something along those lines. Note that this would imply better error bounds on the Landau result, though: (1 + 1/log x) rather than (1 + 1/log log x). | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 9:56 | comment | added | Will Jagy | No, I suppose Theorem 437 is the main thing.. Montgomery and Vaughan have a bit more but I'm not positive you will be satisfied with that either. MV do expand a bit on things, worth a quick look I should think. Given a suggestion from one book I looked at, induction on $k$ in $\pi_k(x)$ perhaps a case can be made for $$\pi_2(x) \approx Li(x) \; \log \log x $$ | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 7:07 | comment | added | Charles | @Will: I don't see anything more than (1) -- Theorem 437 in my printing -- in H&W. Am I missing something? | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 6:42 | comment | added | Will Jagy | I copied out a number of pages, around here somewhere. The raw facts alluded to, perhaps with less detail, are in Hardy and Wright, section 22.18 | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 5:59 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | @Will, in particular, Section 7.4, Numbers composed of a prescribed number of primes. The formulas are too complicated to fit within the margins of this comment! | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 5:27 | comment | added | Will Jagy | Multiplicative number theory I : classical theory $$ $$ Hugh L. Montgomery, Robert C. Vaughan. $$ $$ Cambridge University Press, 2007. | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 5:10 | answer | added | Gerry Myerson | timeline score: 12 | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 4:37 | history | asked | Charles | CC BY-SA 2.5 |