Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes
- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
--- gulland68 <tmgulland@...> wrote:
> > --- gulland68 <tmgulland@...> wrote:Nope, in sieving the error term explodes (relatively). That's why kooks make
> > Yes. Let's call q=sqrt(n) in the above.
> > The numbers you're talking about are "numbers with no factors less
> than q" and
> > crop up in all kinds of contexts.
> > Look at the sublinear techniques for prime counting, for example.
> > There's nothing particularly interesting about them, primality-wise their
> > behaviour is as described by Dirichlet's theoreom. (in summary -
> > uninteresting.)
> Do the margins representing maxima and minima for the predictions as
> to the number of places where no sieve components fall, closely
> resemble those of the PNT (just at a different gradient)? Are the
> predictions as accurate as with the PNT?
pronouncements of proofs of Goldbach, as they've completely forgotten the error
terms which swamp everything they're dealing with.
For more about extremal behaviour, see 'prime gaps' and the two
Hardy-Littlewood conjectures. All documented on http://primepages.org/ .
() ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign
/\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed
[stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.