--- In

primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

> "Alexander" <werner.sand@> wrote:

>

> > > [3.196178168631, 2097257]

> > > [3.196178168641, 4194581]

> > > [3.196178168628, 8388617]

> > > [3.196178168631, 16777289]

> > > [3.196178168630, 33554501]

> > > [3.196178168629, 67109321]

> > > [3.196178168630, 134217779]

> >

> > I would appreciate if you could also use a

> > simple program without Brun's constant.

>

> OK, but now it is of course a dumb method, since

> the HL correction for truncation is much bigger,

> when you wilfully throw away all of that hard

> work by Pascal Sebah to evaluate B:

>

> {Sdumb(t)=log(t/(t-1));}

>

> {Rdumb(t)=2*0.66016181584686957/log(t);}

>

> {T=134217779;default(primelimit,T);

> default(realprecision,7);e=2^21;s=0;

> forprime(t=3,T,if(isprime(t+2),s+=Sdumb(t);

> if(t>e,print([exp(s+Rdumb(t)),t]);e*=2)));}

>

> [3.196175, 2097257]

> [3.196230, 4194581]

> [3.196199, 8388617]

> [3.196216, 16777289]

> [3.196203, 33554501]

> [3.196185, 67109321]

> [3.196191, 134217779]

>

> David

>

What I tried to explain is: As a simple program can easily show, your table is wrong.

Werner