Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Boland's Distribution of Primes

Expand Messages
  • Dick Boland
    Hello all, I have reason to believe that I can prove the following prime distribution model. pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)~pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) Can some of the people on
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello all,

      I have reason to believe that I can prove
      the following prime distribution model.

      pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)~pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2)

      Can some of the people on this list please
      check out the "heuristic" of my distribution
      function?

      I conjecture that deviation from actual
      meanders between + and - infinitely often
      and that the maximum amplitude of error,
      although seen to increase in value,
      is strictly bounded such that the
      percentage deviation from actual pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)
      as predicted by pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) approaches zero.

      The implications are the demystification of the
      word "heuristic" as it applies to Number Theory
      and we can prove everything.

      Here is some sample data considering
      only prime "g". It's similar to the
      output for all g.

      Can someone provide independent verification of these numbers
      and perhaps write a program to check out higher ranges
      and derive some constants?

      -Dick Boland

      g pred. actl. error
      - ----- ----- -----
      5 3 3 0
      7 3 4 -1
      11 4 5 -1
      13 5 5 0

      2789 353 352 1
      2791 353 324 29
      2797 353 347 6
      2801 353 371 -18
      2803 353 353 0
      2819 356 370 -14
      2833 359 372 -13
      2837 360 355 5
      2843 362 345 17

      7039 797 790 7
      7043 798 805 -7
      7057 798 798 0
      7069 799 803 -4
      7079 801 798 3
      7103 802 798 4
      7109 804 811 -7
      7121 803 793 10
      7127 804 821 -17
      7129 805 820 -15
      7151 807 793 14
      7159 809 807 2
      7177 809 827 -18
      7187 810 815 -5
      7193 811 818 -7
      7207 812 801 11

      13291 1397 1401 -4
      13297 1398 1465 -67
      13309 1400 1409 -9
      13313 1400 1378 22
      13327 1400 1418 -18
      13331 1402 1420 -18
      13337 1403 1412 -9
      13339 1403 1418 -15
      13367 1406 1409 -3
      13381 1408 1378 30
      13397 1408 1417 -9
      13399 1408 1421 -13
      13411 1409 1410 -1
      13417 1411 1389 22
      13421 1411 1398 13
      13441 1414 1361 53
      13451 1415 1394 21
      13457 1417 1402 15


      15401 1603 1572 31
      15413 1603 1610 -7
      15427 1604 1631 -27
      15439 1604 1599 5
      15443 1605 1624 -19
      15451 1606 1597 9
      15461 1606 1570 36
      15467 1607 1622 -15
      15473 1610 1623 -13
      15493 1610 1632 -22
      15497 1610 1596 14
      15511 1610 1585 25
      15527 1610 1613 -3
      15541 1614 1623 -9
      15551 1615 1576 39
      15559 1617 1625 -8
      15569 1618 1616 2


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
      a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
    • mikeoakes2@aol.com
      In a message dated 02/06/2001 01:29:30 GMT Daylight Time, ... [snip] By the Prime Number Theorem (PNT), pi(x) ~ x/ln(x) as x - infinity. Inserting this, the
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 02/06/2001 01:29:30 GMT Daylight Time,
        richard042@... (Dick Boland) writes:
        >Hello all,
        >
        > I have reason to believe that I can prove
        > the following prime distribution model.
        >
        > pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)~pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2)
        >
        > Can some of the people on this list please
        > check out the "heuristic" of my distribution
        > function?
        [snip]

        By the Prime Number Theorem (PNT), pi(x) ~ x/ln(x) as x -> infinity.
        Inserting this, the two sides of your formula agree to first order; in fact,
        to this order, both sides are just pi(g). To second order one finds:-
        lhs = g/ln(g) - 0.5*g/(ln(g))^2 - ...
        rhs = g/ln(g) - c*g/(ln(g))^2 - ...
        where the constant c = 3/2*ln(3/2)-1/2*ln(1/2) = 0.95477...

        So your asymptotic formula, while interesting and somewhat surprising, seems
        unlikely to be true. Can someone maybe settle this definitely, by using PNT
        with error bound?

        Mike Oakes
      • Dick Boland
        Hello, When g=2762, g^2=7628644, My distribution function, pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) ~ pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2) predicts 350 primes vs. actual 390 primes, error= -40 or
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,

          When g=2762, g^2=7628644,
          My distribution function,
          pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) ~ pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)
          predicts 350 primes vs. actual 390 primes,
          error= -40 or -10.2564%

          I conjecture that g=2762 is the highest g for which the
          deviation error is greater than 10%.
          And I would that someone more skilled than I on this
          list can search for a counterexample.

          So far I've tested all g up to g=5250, and I had previously
          tested all prime g up to ~17,000.

          As I continue to suspect about this function that
          the percentage of the error deviation grows progressively
          smaller in amplitude, I began testing a range starting
          g=25000 and I would further conjecture that the highest
          g with percentage error > 8% will have occurred
          prior to g=25000.

          It was a theoretical scenario that brought me to test this
          function in this neighborhood. I believe my theoretical
          argument will make it clear why this phenomenon must
          exist within the distribution of prime numbers.

          > where the constant c = 3/2*ln(3/2)-1/2*ln(1/2) = 0.95477...

          Be aware that my first formulation of
          pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) ~ pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)
          may not be the most exact center for this
          "order 1 order 2 codependancy"
          within the distribution of primes, but it is close enough
          that the percentage error goes to zero with increasing g.

          I conjecture that one could consider

          pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) ~ pi((g-1)^2)-pi((g-2)^2) or
          pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) ~ pi((g+1)^2)-pi(g^2), for example

          and these functions will also yield a percentage error that
          goes to zero, maybe slower, maybe faster, somewhere there may
          be an exact center (error drops fastest).

          As I continue to suspect about this function that
          the percentage of the error deviation grows progressively
          smaller with increasing g.
          I began testing a range starting
          g=25000 and now I further conjecture that the highest g
          for which the percentage error exceeds 8% will have occurred
          prior to g=25000.

          Here's as far as I got from g=25,000. The
          highest percentage error found is < 4% in the tests below.
          The sign of the error continues to change frequently
          and the percentage of error continues to average
          lower & lower.

          Can someone please verify some of these numbers for me?

          Thanks,

          -Dick Boland

          Data for g>25000
          g g^2 PRED. ACT. ERROR count and %deviation
          ______________________________________________________
          25000 625000000 2476 2431 45 1.8510900863842040312
          25001 625050001 2477 2475 2 0.080808080808080808
          25002 625100004 2477 2421 56 2.3130937629078893018
          25003 625150009 2477 2472 5 0.2022653721682847896
          25004 625200016 2477 2465 12 0.4868154158215010141
          25005 625250025 2478 2465 13 0.527383367139959432
          25006 625300036 2478 2439 39 1.5990159901599015989
          25007 625350049 2478 2470 8 0.3238866396761133602
          25008 625400064 2478 2390 88 3.68200836820083682
          25009 625450081 2478 2503 -25 -0.9988014382740711146
          25010 625500100 2478 2489 -11 -0.4419445560466050622
          25011 625550121 2478 2480 -2 -0.0806451612903225806
          25012 625600144 2479 2466 13 0.5271695052716950526
          25013 625650169 2479 2497 -18 -0.7208650380456547856
          25014 625700196 2479 2483 -4 -0.1610954490535642368
          25015 625750225 2479 2473 6 0.2426202992317023857
          25016 625800256 2479 2468 11 0.4457050243111831442
          25017 625850289 2479 2428 51 2.1004942339373970345
          25018 625900324 2479 2428 51 2.1004942339373970345
          25019 625950361 2479 2467 12 0.4864207539521686258
          25020 626000400 2480 2466 14 0.5677210056772100567
          25021 626050441 2480 2470 10 0.4048582995951417003
          25022 626100484 2480 2453 27 1.1006930289441500203
          25023 626150529 2480 2487 -7 -0.2814636107760353839
          25024 626200576 2479 2493 -14 -0.5615724027276373846
          25025 626250625 2480 2429 51 2.0996294771510909839
          25026 626300676 2480 2465 15 0.6085192697768762677
          25027 626350729 2480 2492 -12 -0.4815409309791332263
          25028 626400784 2480 2400 80 3.3333333333333333333
          25029 626450841 2480 2516 -36 -1.4308426073131955484
          25030 626500900 2480 2512 -32 -1.2738853503184713375
          25031 626550961 2480 2520 -40 -1.5873015873015873015
          25032 626601024 2481 2490 -9 -0.3614457831325301204
          25033 626651089 2482 2471 11 0.4451639012545528126
          25034 626701156 2482 2486 -4 -0.1609010458567980691
          25035 626751225 2482 2489 -7 -0.2812374447569304941
          25036 626801296 2481 2426 55 2.2671063478977741137
          25037 626851369 2481 2510 -29 -1.1553784860557768923
          25038 626901444 2481 2448 33 1.3480392156862745097
          25039 626951521 2481 2456 25 1.0179153094462540716
          25040 627001600 2481 2469 12 0.4860267314702308626
          25041 627051681 2482 2486 -4 -0.1609010458567980691
          25042 627101764 2482 2472 10 0.4045307443365695792
          25043 627151849 2482 2477 5 0.2018570851836899474

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
          a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
        • Dick Boland
          Hello, Has anyone on this list checked out my numbers? Anyone want to know the theory? I need help writing the paper(s), can anyone help me? Nothing worth
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello,

            Has anyone on this list checked out my numbers?
            Anyone want to know the theory?
            I need help writing the paper(s),
            can anyone help me?
            Nothing worth writing about here? - I need to
            understand why not before wasting my time, or yours.

            Thank you

            -Dick Boland


            --- Dick Boland <richard042@...> wrote:
            > Hello,
            >
            > When g=2762, g^2=7628644,
            > My distribution function,
            > pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) ~ pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)
            > predicts 350 primes vs. actual 390 primes,
            > error= -40 or -10.2564%
            >
            > I conjecture that g=2762 is the highest g for which the
            > deviation error is greater than 10%.
            > And I would that someone more skilled than I on this
            > list can search for a counterexample.
            >
            > So far I've tested all g up to g=5250, and I had previously
            > tested all prime g up to ~17,000.
            >
            > As I continue to suspect about this function that
            > the percentage of the error deviation grows progressively
            > smaller in amplitude, I began testing a range starting
            > g=25000 and I would further conjecture that the highest
            > g with percentage error > 8% will have occurred
            > prior to g=25000.
            >
            > It was a theoretical scenario that brought me to test this
            > function in this neighborhood. I believe my theoretical
            > argument will make it clear why this phenomenon must
            > exist within the distribution of prime numbers.
            >
            > > where the constant c = 3/2*ln(3/2)-1/2*ln(1/2) = 0.95477...
            >
            > Be aware that my first formulation of
            > pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) ~ pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)
            > may not be the most exact center for this
            > "order 1 order 2 codependancy"
            > within the distribution of primes, but it is close enough
            > that the percentage error goes to zero with increasing g.
            >
            > I conjecture that one could consider
            >
            > pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) ~ pi((g-1)^2)-pi((g-2)^2) or
            > pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) ~ pi((g+1)^2)-pi(g^2), for example
            >
            > and these functions will also yield a percentage error that
            > goes to zero, maybe slower, maybe faster, somewhere there may
            > be an exact center (error drops fastest).
            >
            > As I continue to suspect about this function that
            > the percentage of the error deviation grows progressively
            > smaller with increasing g.
            > I began testing a range starting
            > g=25000 and now I further conjecture that the highest g
            > for which the percentage error exceeds 8% will have occurred
            > prior to g=25000.
            >
            > Here's as far as I got from g=25,000. The
            > highest percentage error found is < 4% in the tests below.
            > The sign of the error continues to change frequently
            > and the percentage of error continues to average
            > lower & lower.
            >
            > Can someone please verify some of these numbers for me?
            >
            > Thanks,
            >
            > -Dick Boland
            >
            > Data for g>25000
            > g g^2 PRED. ACT. ERROR count and %deviation
            > ______________________________________________________
            > 25000 625000000 2476 2431 45 1.8510900863842040312
            > 25001 625050001 2477 2475 2 0.080808080808080808
            > 25002 625100004 2477 2421 56 2.3130937629078893018
            > 25003 625150009 2477 2472 5 0.2022653721682847896
            > 25004 625200016 2477 2465 12 0.4868154158215010141
            > 25005 625250025 2478 2465 13 0.527383367139959432
            > 25006 625300036 2478 2439 39 1.5990159901599015989
            > 25007 625350049 2478 2470 8 0.3238866396761133602
            > 25008 625400064 2478 2390 88 3.68200836820083682
            > 25009 625450081 2478 2503 -25 -0.9988014382740711146
            > 25010 625500100 2478 2489 -11 -0.4419445560466050622
            > 25011 625550121 2478 2480 -2 -0.0806451612903225806
            > 25012 625600144 2479 2466 13 0.5271695052716950526
            > 25013 625650169 2479 2497 -18 -0.7208650380456547856
            > 25014 625700196 2479 2483 -4 -0.1610954490535642368
            > 25015 625750225 2479 2473 6 0.2426202992317023857
            > 25016 625800256 2479 2468 11 0.4457050243111831442
            > 25017 625850289 2479 2428 51 2.1004942339373970345
            > 25018 625900324 2479 2428 51 2.1004942339373970345
            > 25019 625950361 2479 2467 12 0.4864207539521686258
            > 25020 626000400 2480 2466 14 0.5677210056772100567
            > 25021 626050441 2480 2470 10 0.4048582995951417003
            > 25022 626100484 2480 2453 27 1.1006930289441500203
            > 25023 626150529 2480 2487 -7 -0.2814636107760353839
            > 25024 626200576 2479 2493 -14 -0.5615724027276373846
            > 25025 626250625 2480 2429 51 2.0996294771510909839
            > 25026 626300676 2480 2465 15 0.6085192697768762677
            > 25027 626350729 2480 2492 -12 -0.4815409309791332263
            > 25028 626400784 2480 2400 80 3.3333333333333333333
            > 25029 626450841 2480 2516 -36 -1.4308426073131955484
            > 25030 626500900 2480 2512 -32 -1.2738853503184713375
            > 25031 626550961 2480 2520 -40 -1.5873015873015873015
            > 25032 626601024 2481 2490 -9 -0.3614457831325301204
            > 25033 626651089 2482 2471 11 0.4451639012545528126
            > 25034 626701156 2482 2486 -4 -0.1609010458567980691
            > 25035 626751225 2482 2489 -7 -0.2812374447569304941
            > 25036 626801296 2481 2426 55 2.2671063478977741137
            > 25037 626851369 2481 2510 -29 -1.1553784860557768923
            > 25038 626901444 2481 2448 33 1.3480392156862745097
            > 25039 626951521 2481 2456 25 1.0179153094462540716
            > 25040 627001600 2481 2469 12 0.4860267314702308626
            > 25041 627051681 2482 2486 -4 -0.1609010458567980691
            > 25042 627101764 2482 2472 10 0.4045307443365695792
            > 25043 627151849 2482 2477 5 0.2018570851836899474
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do You Yahoo!?
            > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
            > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
            >


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
            a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
          • Phil Carmody
            ... We probably all trust you to have got the numerics correct, so checked may not be the right word. They certainly look believable. ... You need more data,
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 4, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, 04 June 2001, Dick Boland wrote:
              >
              > Hello,
              >
              > Has anyone on this list checked out my numbers?

              We probably all trust you to have got the numerics correct, so 'checked' may not be the right word. They certainly look believable.

              > Anyone want to know the theory?
              > I need help writing the paper(s),
              > can anyone help me?
              > Nothing worth writing about here? - I need to
              > understand why not before wasting my time, or yours.

              You need more data, from far higher ranges, before such a prediction makes much sense. When n is small the read deviation may be smaller than the noise.

              If you look at www.wolfram.com (the Mathematica website), then I know in the 'Mathematica Book' section, there's am implementation note:
              <<<
              Prime and PrimePi use sparse caching and sieving. For large n, the Lagarias�Miller�Odlyzko algorithm for PrimePi is
              used, based on asymptotic estimates of the density of primes, and is inverted to give Prime.
              >>>

              Using those names you could try to find the algorithm in question, and using that find some far higher ranges to prove (in the original sense, meaning 'test') your hypothesis.

              You might be able to find an online calculator, or Java Applet which does the calculation for you. ('Prime Pi' is the standard name for the function, so it probably a good search string.)

              Good luck,
              Phil

              Mathematics should not have to involve martyrdom;
              Support Eric Weisstein, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com
              Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
              http://www.shopping.altavista.com
            • d.broadhurst@open.ac.uk
              ... http://www.math.Princeton.EDU/~arbooker/nthprime.html
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 4, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Phil Carmody wrote:
                > You might be able to find an online calculator
                http://www.math.Princeton.EDU/~arbooker/nthprime.html
              • Ferenc Adorjan
                Hi, I checked the conjecture by using the nthprime page which David Broadhurst proposed and found for g=10^6, that pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)= 72470 while
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 5, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi,

                  I checked the conjecture by using the "nthprime"
                  page which David Broadhurst proposed and found
                  for
                  g=10^6, that
                  pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)= 72470 while
                  pi(3*g/2)-pi(g/2) = 72617
                  with a relative difference of 3.4e-3.
                  Thus, it seems working pretty well. An exact
                  proof would be most interesting, especially if
                  providing error bounds.

                  Ferenc
                  2,3,5,7,17,23,47,103,107,137,283,313,347,373,...
                • d.broadhurst@open.ac.uk
                  pi(x) ~ x/ln(x)*(1+1/ln(x)+O(1/ln(x)^2)) lhs = pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2) rhs = pi(3*g/2)-p(g/2) rhs/lhs = 1 + k/log(g) + O(1/ln(g)^2) k = 1 - log(27/4)/2 =
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 5, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    pi(x) ~ x/ln(x)*(1+1/ln(x)+O(1/ln(x)^2))
                    lhs = pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)
                    rhs = pi(3*g/2)-p(g/2)
                    rhs/lhs = 1 + k/log(g) + O(1/ln(g)^2)
                    k = 1 - log(27/4)/2 = 0.04522874755778077232...

                    Hence rhs > lhs, at large g, because the
                    base of Naperian logarithms exceeds sqrt(27/4).
                  • d.broadhurst@open.ac.uk
                    Let L(g) = pi(g^2) - pi((g-1)^2) R(g) = pi(3*g/2) - pi(g/2) D(g) = R(g) - L(g) where pi(g) is the number of primes not exceeding g. Dick Boland conjectured
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 6, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Let

                      L(g) = pi(g^2) - pi((g-1)^2)
                      R(g) = pi(3*g/2) - pi(g/2)
                      D(g) = R(g) - L(g)

                      where pi(g) is the number of primes not exceeding g.

                      Dick Boland conjectured that D(g) changes
                      sign an infinite number of times.

                      On the contrary, I claimed that

                      k = lim_{g to infty} log(g)^2*D(g)/g = 1 - log(27/4)/2 > 0.

                      If you replace pi(x) by Riemann's estimator R(x)
                      (Ribenboim p224) you will find a single sign change
                      around g=10^4. Superimposed on this upward trend
                      are sqrt fluctuations from the complex zeros of zeta.
                      Dick was misled by the fact these can easily buck
                      the trend for his small g's, around 2.5*10^4.

                      But for how much longer can this go on?

                      Already it's getting difficult for g around 10^6,
                      where a simple sieve of Eratosthenes gave

                      g R(g) L(g) D(g)
                      1000000 72617 72450 167 [Pace Ferenc]
                      999999 72617 72569 48
                      999998 72617 72340 277
                      999997 72617 72573 44
                      999996 72617 72546 71
                      999995 72617 72381 236
                      999994 72617 72542 75
                      999993 72617 72425 192
                      999992 72617 72548 69
                      999991 72617 72180 437
                      999990 72617 72195 422
                      999989 72617 72561 56
                      999988 72617 72434 183
                      999987 72617 72703 -86 [Made it!]
                      999986 72617 72099 518
                      999985 72617 72162 455
                      999984 72616 72378 238
                      999983 72616 72317 299
                      999982 72616 72511 105
                      999981 72616 72371 245
                      999980 72616 72579 37
                      999979 72616 72311 305
                      999978 72616 72352 264
                      999977 72616 72548 68
                      999976 72616 72645 -29 [And again!]

                      These *roughly* agree with a mean k*g/log(g)^2 = 237
                      and a deviation that is of order sqrt(g/log(g))= 269.

                      Puzzle: Is there a g>10^7 for which D(g)<0 ?

                      Here it won't be so easy to
                      buck the Riemann trend, since
                      (k*g/log(g)^2)/sqrt(g/log(g)) > 1741/788 > 2.2
                    • Dick Boland
                      Hello, ... Thanks Phil, Interesting stuff rersulting from this search (besides the algorithm), I will be doing some research to try and put it into context of
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 6, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello,

                        > Prime and PrimePi use sparse caching and sieving. For large n, the Lagarias�Miller�Odlyzko
                        > algorithm for PrimePi is
                        > used, based on asymptotic estimates of the density of primes, and is inverted to give Prime.

                        Thanks Phil,
                        Interesting stuff rersulting from this search (besides the algorithm),
                        I will be doing some research to try and put it into context of my theory
                        I haven't gotten my hands on the algorithm in a form that I can use,
                        and it would be good to get some higher data, but it may not be necessary.
                        The highest prime page is good for some spot checking as Forenc showed,
                        and still no counterexamples :)

                        As for Dave's proposition
                        > pi(x) ~ x/ln(x)*(1+1/ln(x)+O(1/ln(x)^2))
                        > lhs = pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2)
                        > rhs = pi(3*g/2)-p(g/2)
                        > rhs/lhs = 1 + k/log(g) + O(1/ln(g)^2)
                        > k = 1 - log(27/4)/2 = 0.04522874755778077232...
                        > Hence rhs > lhs, at large g, because the
                        > base of Naperian logarithms exceeds sqrt(27/4).

                        I'm not sure that the above proves anything
                        or if it simply reflects what current
                        wisdom on the subject would have us believe.
                        If it's a hard mathematical proof, it would seem to disprove
                        the conjecture that the sign of the error in my function
                        changes infinitely often, but not necessarily disprove the
                        percentage error going to zero.
                        I need to understand it better, so I have some home work.

                        I should be able to put something together to share after the weekend.

                        Thank you,

                        -Dick Boland



                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
                        a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                      • d.broadhurst@open.ac.uk
                        ... Yes Dick, that is what I claim: constant sign of difference at sufficiently large g, because you missed a term whose fractional contribution is k/log(g),
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jun 6, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dick Boland wrote:

                          > it would seem to disprove
                          > the conjecture that the sign of the error in my function
                          > changes infinitely often, but not necessarily disprove the
                          > percentage error going to zero.

                          Yes Dick, that is what I claim: constant sign
                          of difference at sufficiently large g, because you
                          missed a term whose fractional contribution is
                          k/log(g), which of course goes to zero, relative to
                          each side, but *dominates* the difference,
                          when the (roughly!) order 1/sqrt(g) fluctuations die away.

                          Your less interesting conjecture, that lhs/rhs
                          goes to unity seems eminently plausible:
                          both sides are g/log(g) + sub-leading.
                          No one has *ever* suggested that fluctuations
                          remain of finite relative size!

                          My emphasis is on the sub-leading k/log(g) which becomes
                          (I claim) leading in the relative *difference* R/L-1.
                          It is masked by fluctuations for g^2 < 10^12,
                          so you ain't learned nuffin yet :-)
                          because you stayed at g < 3*10^4.
                          I believe that k/log(g) dominates fluctuations in R/L-1
                          *eventually*.

                          You can use Nth-prime page, for g^2 in [10^12,3*10^13],
                          like Ferenc, or write an Erato sieve, like me.
                          Nothing smaller counts, it seems to me.
                          Wobble masks Riemann for tiny log(g)!

                          But you are in good company, Andrew Odlyzko
                          got very worried at g=O(10^22), a few years
                          ago, when statistical correlations were not
                          in accord with the *asymptotic* predictions of
                          the Riemann hypothesis. Then some of Mike Berry's
                          colleagues in Bristol observed that they could
                          mock up Andrew's data with random N by N matrices
                          (Gaussian unitary ensemble, to be technical)
                          where N is something like log(g)/pi.
                          So they simulated Odlyzko in tiny amounts of
                          time (compared to finding the 10^22'nd zero of zeta)
                          with very modest random matrices (16 by 16 as I recall)
                          and then easily upped their matrix size to see the onset
                          of the expected Riemannian behaviour.

                          Log is a cruel function,
                          for people interested in asymptotics...
                          Alain Connes told me that it gave him
                          the creeps that 10^22 is such a *small* number
                          when you take its log (and divide by pi as I recall).
                          You find the 10^22'nd zero of zeta and still
                          are far away from the prediction of Riemann!

                          On the other hand, log is good news for prime provers,
                          with cheap Proths coming at merely log^3 prices.

                          Best

                          David
                        • d.broadhurst@open.ac.uk
                          ... This is a believe: not a proof! The subtlety is that your between squares L(g) = pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2) is very intriguing. If pi(g^2) ~ R(g^2)*(1 +/-
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jun 6, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            PS:

                            > I believe that k/log(g) dominates fluctuations in R/L-1
                            > *eventually*.

                            This is a believe: not a proof!

                            The subtlety is that your "between squares"
                            L(g) = pi(g^2)-pi((g-1)^2) is very intriguing.

                            If
                            pi(g^2) ~ R(g^2)*(1 +/- O(1/sqrt(g^2))
                            then naively we get
                            L(g) ~ g/log(g)*(1 +/- O(1)) [whoops!]

                            I don't believe that nightmare, since the
                            ends of the range [(g-1)^2,g^2] are
                            relatively close together, and hence
                            tightly correlated.

                            But you have clearly taken us into
                            novel (to us) territory, thanks.

                            David
                          • bhelmes_1
                            A beautifull day Results for Primes mod some numbers up to 10^14 is ready http://beablue.selfip.net/devalco/table_of_primes.htm I checked the results to P mod
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 23, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              A beautifull day

                              Results for Primes mod some numbers up to 10^14 is ready
                              http://beablue.selfip.net/devalco/table_of_primes.htm
                              I checked the results to P mod 4 = 3 and P mod 4 = 1
                              concerning the existing table.

                              I used a sieve of Eratosthenes with a Heap-construction for collecting the primes and Help-array in the first level Cache for sieving the primes.

                              Program under
                              http://beablue.selfip.net/devalco/sieb_des_eratosthenes.htm

                              Runtime of the program is 7*14 days, i distributed the work on 7 nodes.

                              There can be made some improvements using assembler.

                              I would like to expand the tables with the distribution of Primes up to 10^15 or 10^16.

                              Is there a chance to calculate the programs in a grid or cluster.
                              A connection between the node is not necessary.

                              Besides the results could be usefull for physic or biologic research

                              Nice Greetings from the primes
                              Bernhard

                              http://www.devalco.de
                            • Andrey Kulsha
                              ... 10^15 or 10^16. http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1001&L=nmbrthry&T=0&X=14ADB57FE44944E3D4&P=327 Best regards, Andrey
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jan 23, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > I would like to expand the tables with the distribution of Primes up to
                                10^15 or 10^16.

                                http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1001&L=nmbrthry&T=0&X=14ADB57FE44944E3D4&P=327

                                Best regards,

                                Andrey
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.