Timeline for Barban-Davenport-Halberstam without von Mangoldt weights
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2010 at 18:18 | answer | added | H A Helfgott | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 26, 2010 at 18:17 | comment | added | H A Helfgott | Thank you - I think it is just what was needed. How could I miss it? | |
| Oct 26, 2010 at 13:33 | comment | added | Idoneal | Have you seen Theorem 17.5 of Iwaniec-Kowalski? I think that is all you need. | |
| Oct 26, 2010 at 11:58 | comment | added | H A Helfgott | This is obviously a cultural reference I am missing. At any rate, can we get back to the question? | |
| Oct 26, 2010 at 10:36 | comment | added | Idoneal | Well said Mukherjee! | |
| Oct 26, 2010 at 8:59 | comment | added | H A Helfgott | Yes, that's why the von Mangoldt function was ever defined. At the same time, we sometimes have to deal with primes! | |
| Oct 26, 2010 at 8:55 | history | edited | H A Helfgott | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 22 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Oct 26, 2010 at 4:29 | comment | added | Idoneal | I don't know of any such cut and dried reference but I find dealing with von-Mangoldt easier than dealing with primes. | |
| Oct 25, 2010 at 21:23 | history | asked | H A Helfgott | CC BY-SA 2.5 |