Timeline for Probability of finding a prime number between $x-\ln(x)$ and $x+\ln(x)$
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 4 at 18:15 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | @GHfromMO Thanks for the correction, which fortunately also makes the next sentence correct. | |
May 4 at 18:12 | comment | added | GH from MO | @AndreasBlass The density is not $x/(\ln x)$ but $1/\ln x$. | |
May 4 at 17:29 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | @YCor A very simple observation that helped me see what's going on: The prime number theorem says that, near $x$, the density of primes is approximately $x/(\ln x)$. So in your interval of length $2c\ln x$, we can expect approximately $2c$ primes. That "explains" the factor $2$ in the comments by Lucia and Wojowu. That the distribution should be Poisson (in Lucia's comment) seems to be another instance of the distribution of primes being random unless one can find a reason against randomness. | |
May 4 at 8:24 | comment | added | Wojowu | @YCor The introduction of that paper answers that too. It is known that the probability is positive for all large enough $N$, and is conjectured to tend to $1-e^{-2c}$. | |
May 4 at 7:46 | comment | added | YCor | Is this specific to this interval $[x-\ln x,x+\ln x]$ or is there something similar for any interval, say, $[x-c\ln x,x+c\ln x]$ for $c>0$? | |
May 4 at 5:28 | history | edited | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
May 4 at 4:10 | history | edited | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 60 characters in body
|
May 4 at 4:04 | history | answered | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 4.0 |