Skip to main content
deleted 15 characters in body
Source Link
GH from MO
  • 105.4k
  • 8
  • 293
  • 398

Being $k$-rough is the same as being relatively prime to the product of primes up to $k$. Hence if $P(k)$ denotes that product, and $j$ denotes the Jacobsthal function, then $t=j(P(k))-1$ works for every $n$, while $t=j(P(k))-2$ fails for infinitely many $n$'s. In particular, it follows from a result of Iwaniec (1978)Iwaniec (1971) that $t=ck^2$ works for some absolute constant $c>0$.

Being $k$-rough is the same as being relatively prime to the product of primes up to $k$. Hence if $P(k)$ denotes that product, and $j$ denotes the Jacobsthal function, then $t=j(P(k))-1$ works for every $n$, while $t=j(P(k))-2$ fails for infinitely many $n$'s. In particular, it follows from a result of Iwaniec (1978) that $t=ck^2$ works for some absolute constant $c>0$.

Being $k$-rough is the same as being relatively prime to the product of primes up to $k$. Hence if $P(k)$ denotes that product, and $j$ denotes the Jacobsthal function, then $t=j(P(k))-1$ works for every $n$, while $t=j(P(k))-2$ fails for infinitely many $n$'s. In particular, it follows from a result of Iwaniec (1971) that $t=ck^2$ works for some absolute constant $c>0$.

Source Link
GH from MO
  • 105.4k
  • 8
  • 293
  • 398

Being $k$-rough is the same as being relatively prime to the product of primes up to $k$. Hence if $P(k)$ denotes that product, and $j$ denotes the Jacobsthal function, then $t=j(P(k))-1$ works for every $n$, while $t=j(P(k))-2$ fails for infinitely many $n$'s. In particular, it follows from a result of Iwaniec (1978) that $t=ck^2$ works for some absolute constant $c>0$.