Browse Groups

• ... In 1914, numerical evidence proved that π(x)
Message 1 of 8 , Jan 2, 2011
View Source
--- On Sun, 1/2/11, Andrey Kulsha wrote:
> There are also two new (very similar, huh)
> papers analyzing and improving these results:
> http://eprints.ma.man.ac.uk/1541/01/Munibah2010.pdf

"In 1914, numerical evidence proved that π(x) < li(x) for all x. "

Ewww...

Phil
• ... It gets worse. Looking at the start of Chapter 3, Numerical Results (i), we have the assertion: Now we know that (gonna simplify glyphs, sorry) e^(iwy)
Message 1 of 8 , Jan 2, 2011
View Source
--- On Sun, 1/2/11, Phil Carmody wrote:
> --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Andrey Kulsha wrote:
> > There are also two new (very similar, huh)
> > papers analyzing and improving these results:
> > http://eprints.ma.man.ac.uk/1541/01/Munibah2010.pdf
>
> "In 1914, numerical evidence proved that π(x) < li(x)
> for all x. "
>
> Ewww...

It gets worse. Looking at the start of Chapter 3, Numerical Results (i), we have the assertion:

Now we know that (gonna simplify glyphs, sorry)

e^(iwy) e^(iwy) e^(-iwy)
------- = ------- + --------
p B + iy B - iy

where none of the terms are defined. It seems chapter 2 most recently defined p = B + iy.

So his assertion seems to be that:

e^(iwy) e^(iwy) e^(-iwy)
------- = ------- + --------
B + iy B + iy B - iy

Or:

e^(-iwy)
0 = --------
B - iy

Or are my eyes playing tricks with me?

Phil
• ... I guess they mean the conjugated pair of zeta zeros. Best regards, Andrey
Message 1 of 8 , Jan 2, 2011
View Source
> It gets worse. Looking at the start of Chapter 3, Numerical Results (i),
> we have the assertion:
>
> Now we know that (gonna simplify glyphs, sorry)
>
> e^(iwy) e^(iwy) e^(-iwy)
> ------- = ------- + --------
> p B + iy B - iy

I guess they mean the conjugated pair of zeta zeros.

Best regards,

Andrey
• ... Maths by guesswork? What happened to rigour? Then again, seeing how long those two take to get from 24/8 to 3, I suspect that the papers will be closely
Message 1 of 8 , Jan 2, 2011
View Source
--- On Sun, 1/2/11, Andrey Kulsha wrote:
> > e^(iwy)    e^(iwy)   e^(-iwy)
> > ------- =  ------- + --------
> >    p        B + iy    B - iy
>
>     I guess they mean the conjugated pair of zeta zeros.

Maths by guesswork? What happened to rigour? Then again, seeing how long those two take to get from 24/8 to 3, I suspect that the papers will be closely associated with rigor mortis.

Phil
• _ ... Shows that that dissertation did not have careful proofreading. http://primes.utm.edu/howmany.shtml However in 1914 Littlewood proved that pi(x)-Li(x)
Message 1 of 8 , Jan 2, 2011
View Source
_
> 3d. Re: Demichel
> Posted by: "Phil Carmody" thefatphil@... thefatphil
> Date: Sun Jan 2, 2011 4:32 am ((PST))
>
> --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Andrey Kulsha wrote:
>> There are also two new (very similar, huh)
>> papers analyzing and improving these results:
>> http://eprints.ma.man.ac.uk/1541/01/Munibah2010.pdf
>
> "In 1914, numerical evidence proved that π(x)< li(x) for all x. "
>
> Ewww...
>
> Phil
>

Shows that that dissertation did not have careful proofreading.

http://primes.utm.edu/howmany.shtml

However in 1914 Littlewood proved that pi(x)-Li(x) assumes both positive
and negative values infinitely often.

Kermit
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.