Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with elementary-proofs
Search options not deleted
user 89496
For questions related to 'elementary' proofs in a technical sense, which has nothing to do with the difficulty of the argument or result. A typical example would be 'elementary' proofs of the Prime Number Theorem, which avoid complex analysis. The tag is however not limited to this particular notion of 'elementary.'
2
votes
At what point would an elementary generalization of Bertrand's Postulate be interesting?
Once again, being new here I tried to comment your answer, but obviously don't have 50 points yet.
Here is the original text of my comment with my mistake on value of x
"As a check on your equations …
- 21