Timeline for Exploding primes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2017 at 23:14 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | OK. The first frame would involve 2 jumping to 4 (and 4 would change color as 2 "landed "on it). The next is a similar frame with 3 going to 6. The next might be one or two frames representing 2 going from 4, not landing on 6 because 3 is there already, and then landing on 8. One would move through the integers in a similar fashion, possibly shrinking in scale as the dynamic progresses. Gerhard "Matt Damon Would Play P" Paseman, 2017.03.13. | |
| Mar 13, 2017 at 23:06 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | @GerhardPaseman: A thousand frames could be a large GIF in MB. Looking at your post, I am not clear on what is jumping. Likely I would need to spend more time trying to penetrate it... | |
| Mar 13, 2017 at 22:50 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | I am interested in a similar graphic for the first 200 or so primes following the jumping primes scenario outlined in mathoverflow.net/q/243490 . How hard is it to make such a gif that involves over a thousand frames? Gerhard "Jumping At An Illustrative Opportunity" Paseman, 2017.03.13. | |
| Mar 11, 2017 at 14:51 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Image links broken; now fixed.
|
| Nov 30, 2013 at 14:53 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | @ToddTrimble: Thank you! Just made it up :-), thinking about prime gaps and walking to $\infty$ in various ways. | |
| Nov 30, 2013 at 14:47 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Joseph, only just saw this question. Wonderfully imaginative; did you just make this up? Or what prompted it? | |
| May 13, 2012 at 1:41 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | Thanks, quid! (Yes, the "almost surely" interpretation is what I intended.) Amazing that $n^{6/11}$ is the known bound! | |
| May 12, 2012 at 11:18 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 38 characters in body
|
| May 12, 2012 at 2:41 | comment | added | user9072 | A remark and a question: it seems, according to Guy, Unsolved Problems in NT, the best knwon unconditional upper bound on prime gaps is x^(d+eps) with d = 6/11 [where x corresponds to the size of the prime not the number of the gap]. So that would be a lower bound for the necessary range. I assume but am now not sure, is your Q2 also meant as 'almost surely'? | |
| May 12, 2012 at 0:46 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| May 12, 2012 at 0:31 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 565 characters in body; added 1 characters in body
|
| May 11, 2012 at 13:36 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | @joro: No, which is why I said "more than." Your comment accords with quid's, and adds more detail. Thanks! A remarkable gap between what is known and what is conjectured. | |
| May 11, 2012 at 13:33 | comment | added | joro | Are you sure current technology can prove (unconditionally)? $\beta \sqrt{n}$? Appears to me the best bound on prime gaps under RH is $O(\sqrt{n}\log{n})$ | |
| May 11, 2012 at 12:00 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 26 characters in body
|
| May 11, 2012 at 11:34 | vote | accept | Joseph O'Rourke | ||
| May 11, 2012 at 11:33 | history | edited | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 222 characters in body
|
| May 11, 2012 at 1:38 | comment | added | Lee Mosher | +1 for the great movie | |
| May 10, 2012 at 19:40 | answer | added | user9072 | timeline score: 38 | |
| May 10, 2012 at 19:04 | history | asked | Joseph O'Rourke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |