- Allegedly, Zhang's bound of 70000000 has now shrunk to 12006:

http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Bounded_gaps_between_primes - A question or two for Warren or anyone on this forum. They are fairly obbvious questions, but I would think they are not altogether out of order.

(1)Is this rate of alleged progress surprising?

(2)Are the methods being used surprising?

(3)What, if any, are the reasons to cast doubt on the figure of 12006?

(4) If there are no serious doubts, what rate of progress would be reasonably expected in say the next period of time equal to the elapsed time since Zhang's breakthrough.

(5) Is there any serious peer doubt about Zhang's original methods and findings?

(6) Is there any authority who has attempted to make some kind of popular assessment of the problem, Zhang's approach, and the subsequent work?

(7) Is Zhang himself still working hard on the problem?

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "WarrenS" <warren.wds@...> wrote:

>

> Allegedly, Zhang's bound of 70000000 has now shrunk to 12006:

>

> http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Bounded_gaps_between_primes

> - 2013/6/25 John <mistermac39@...>

> (6) Is there any authority who has attempted to make some kind of popular

This one I can answer:

> assessment of the problem, Zhang's approach, and the subsequent work?

>

http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/online-reading-seminar-for-zhangs-bounded-gaps-between-primes/

I'm also interested on the answers to your other questions, although it is

obvious that that to (4) is "who knows" ;P

Regards,

Jose Brox

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] - --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "WarrenS" <warren.wds@...> wrote:
>

One of the guys in this 27th May video says the lower bound will be 16. Close but no cigar :-)

> Allegedly, Zhang's bound of 70000000 has now shrunk to 12006:

>

> http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Bounded_gaps_between_primes

>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4_sNKoO-RA

Paul - Le 2013-06-25 19:17, John a écrit :

<snip>

I'll add another question :

(8) What did we learn from this proof and what new insight has been

gained ?