Timeline for Goldbach-Waring problem - Bound on $N$ in Hua's theorem?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Aug 13, 2011 at 7:20 | comment | added | Péter Komjáth | I am not familiar with Hua's or other people's proofs, but they may well be ineffective, as they most probably use the Siegel-Walfisz theorem, which is ineffective. This was the case with Vinogradov's original proof of the odd Goldbach conjecture. | |
| Aug 12, 2011 at 13:13 | history | edited | user16007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 12, 2011 at 13:13 | comment | added | user16007 | Yes you are correct! | |
| Aug 12, 2011 at 10:19 | comment | added | Sylvain JULIEN | I guess you mean $\sum_{i=1}^{t}p_{i}^{k}=N$ ? | |
| Aug 12, 2011 at 9:51 | history | edited | user16007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 81 characters in body
|
| Aug 12, 2011 at 9:33 | history | asked | user16007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |