Timeline for Any progress on the Firoozbakht Conjecture? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2018 at 3:52 | comment | added | Alex | As of 2017, the conjecture is true for all primes up to $10^{19}$, based on new data at T.R.Nicely's prime gaps website combined with the sufficient condition in Theorem 3 of arXiv:1506.03042. | |
| May 31, 2013 at 5:48 | history | edited | user20174 |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 26, 2013 at 13:28 | comment | added | user9072 | At the moment it is not quite clear whether this applies to this statement as well but for general information there could be a problem with naming this Cramér-Granville see mathoverflow.net/questions/114399/… | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 4:17 | comment | added | Charles | The conjecture is true up to $4\cdot10^{18}.$ (I expect it's eventually false.) | |
| Mar 16, 2012 at 2:16 | vote | accept | user20174 | ||
| Mar 15, 2012 at 18:39 | history | closed |
Vladimir Dotsenko Will Jagy Yemon Choi Angelo Ryan Budney |
no longer relevant | |
| Mar 15, 2012 at 18:33 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Meta thread: tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1326/… | |
| Mar 15, 2012 at 18:15 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | I believe the proper reaction is to flag humble’s “answers” as spam, which I just did. | |
| Mar 15, 2012 at 18:10 | comment | added | Vladimir Dotsenko | Given the pointless discussion user 'humble' continues posting more and more comments as new answers, I vote to close as "no longer relevant". | |
| Mar 7, 2012 at 9:54 | comment | added | Vladimir Dotsenko | Thanks for clarification. It did not quite occur to me that the one has to read that conjecture not literally as "an inequality holds" but as "an inequality holds, and stronger inequalities don't". | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 20:44 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Thank you Neel. For some reason the conjecture appeared to me as saying that the constant M had to be less than 1. Gerhard ""Now Where Are My Glasses" Paseman, 2012.03.06 | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 17:57 | comment | added | user20174 | @ Gerhard, Cramer-Granville conjecture says that the $O$ constant is greater than 1 (explained in the answer below by Quid) where as the Firoozbakht's Conjecture says it is 1. So both Firoozbakht's conjecture and Cramer-Granville conjecture cannot be simultaneously true. | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 14:12 | answer | added | user9072 | timeline score: 15 | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 7:42 | comment | added | Vladimir Dotsenko | +1 to both previous comments. I agree with Gerhard in the sense that a superficial check suggests that this conjecture might strengthen Cramer-Granville rather than disprove it. Anyway, I tend to suggest that you indeed use Google, or contact the author of the conjecture (ui.ac.ir/websofts/ws2/en_ws2.php?id=10&lang=e). | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 5:31 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Why would it disprove the Cramer-Granville conjecture? Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2012.03.05 | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 4:29 | comment | added | John Jiang | I suppose any progress made on a conjecture of such importance would be easily located by google? | |
| Mar 6, 2012 at 3:37 | history | asked | user20174 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |