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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Confused by Iwaniec and Pintz

Expand Messages
  • Andrey Kulsha
    Hello Bill, ... it doesn t since 23/42 1/2. Best, Andrey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 11, 2005
      Hello Bill,

      > Because 2n+1 = 2(k^(.5)-1)+1 is always greater than k^(23/42)

      it doesn't since 23/42 > 1/2.

      Best,

      Andrey

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • bill2math
      OOPS! Thanks to all who responded with an answer to what I was missing - my inequality statement was obviously incorrect. Regards, Bill
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 11, 2005
        OOPS! Thanks to all who responded with an answer to "what I was
        missing" - my inequality statement was obviously incorrect.

        Regards, Bill
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.