Timeline for Arithmetic progressions without small primes
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17, 2009 at 6:28 | comment | added | Harrison Brown | Hmm, in that case I'm unconvinced that it'd be reasonable to conjecture the affirmative, and I'd look at some of the crazy stuff that's stronger than GRH. I now think that Elliott-Halberstam isn't actually enough for a negative answer, but it seems to provide evidence in that direction. (I'm not getting out pencil and paper because I plan to get some sleep tonight.) | |
| Oct 17, 2009 at 6:20 | comment | added | David E Speyer | Nope, no heuristics as yet. It's just that this is the bound we need for the group theory problem, and it is exactly at the right place to meet the bounds that you expect from GRH. | |
| Oct 17, 2009 at 6:20 | comment | added | Harrison Brown | I should get some sleep rather than posting further on this, but it's probably also worth thinking about the Elliott-Halberstam conjecture, which now that I think about it might be strong enough to answer the question in the negative. | |
| Oct 17, 2009 at 6:12 | history | answered | Harrison Brown | CC BY-SA 2.5 |