20180831, 21:53  #1 
Mar 2018
2·13 Posts 
Possible relation between Catalan’s, RamanujanSoldner’s and Brun’s constants
Hello guys,
I’d like to encourage you to help to look for the possible explanation of the very interesting formula I have “discovered” some time ago. Goes about the hypothetical relationship between the three constants (Catalan’s, RamanujanSoldner’s and Brun’s) related generally with the distribution of primes. The relation is completely surprising and unexpected (neither me nor, few experts in number theory couldn't find the reason for its existence) but amazingly simple, and in some way very elegant :), and this is why I believe could be real... I wrote hypothetical because I’ve discovered it (not derived) a little by accident, exploring some other areas. So, the relation results in receiving the closed formula for Brun's constant, which direct computation is not possible so far and is based on the extrapolation of achievable computational results made with the help of the twin primes conjecture. Basing on these extrapolations (for the n up to 10^16) the value of the constant is about 1.9021605831..., and my result is arbitrarily more precise. Here you can find some short extract of the way how the constant is calculated http://numbers.computation.free.fr/C...imes/twin.html The more details you can find in Marek Wolf's works. And here’s the formula: Let G be the Catalan’s constant, equal to β(2) (Dirichlet beta function for s=2) G = β(2) = 0.91596559417721901505460351493238411077414937… Let µ be the RamanujanSoldner constant µ = 1.45136923488338105028396848589202744949303228… Let B2 be the Brun’s constant Conjecture: B2= [8+40(µG)]/[16(µG)] = 1.9021605831029730799822614917574361… So, simplifying and substituting (µG) with an A, we’ve got: B2=(8+40A)/(16A) Maybe this formula is only the coincidence, but its unusual form suggest it might be true, and this is why I’d like to share this “discovery” with you, because maybe somebody of you would be able to notice something that could help to find its explanation  maybe it could also shed the new light on the problem of distribution of the twin (and other constellations) primes. Kind regards, Marcin Last fiddled with by MarcinLesniak on 20180831 at 22:31 
20180831, 22:09  #2 
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2^{3}·3^{2}·7·19 Posts 
Is it just me, or are we seeing a whole lot of this kind of thing recently?
It's a bit like a friend of mine said about guys coming into his lab claiming to have found a wonderful shortcut for the FFT, and then his people having to patiently explain why the shortcuts wouldn't actually work for almost all cases, and those where it did work were already known.... 
20180831, 23:08  #3 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
9,433 Posts 

20180831, 23:27  #4 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
2^{6}·131 Posts 

20180831, 23:28  #5 
Mar 2018
2×13 Posts 
Guys,
maybe, just to respect some other readers' time let's limit ourselves to some more substantive comments, OK? When you have nothing valuable to write/add, just leave without unnecessary extending the subject. 
20180831, 23:33  #6 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
9,433 Posts 
If you expect that posting here will bump the information content from having it posted on NMBRTHRY list on August 05, you will be disappointed.
On NMBRTHRY, perhaps three dozen math professors and associate professors read your post. Here  ... three and a half people without any degrees and some not even knowing any maths? 
20180831, 23:38  #7 
Sep 2003
A1E_{16} Posts 
Of the three, the constant known with the least precision is Brun's constant.
The value often quoted is 1.902160583104... but from Sebah's notes about his computation it's clear that the precision is at best only about 1.902160583... The digits aren't calculated directly, rather, it's an extrapolation, see the graph in the link. Sebah did the computations leading to this estimate way back in 2002, using twin primes up to 10^{16}. Surely today's computers can do a little better, and maybe add a data point or two to the graph. As far back as 2008, Tomás Oliveira e Silva calculated the number of twin primes up to 10^{18}. I don't know the algorithm for finding pi2(x)... does it work by actually identifying the twin prime pairs, or it is some magic like the algorithm that lets you calculate pi(x) up to 10^{27} without counting individual primes. Has there really been no progress since 2008? A065421: Brun's constant A007508: number of twin primes below 10^{n} Last fiddled with by GP2 on 20180831 at 23:46 
20180831, 23:44  #8 
Mar 2018
32_{8} Posts 
@Batalov
:) I had a shade of hope that I could find somebody passionate about this (or closely related) subject for whom such (possible) relation could prompt some direction of explorations :). Last fiddled with by MarcinLesniak on 20180831 at 23:46 
20180901, 00:41  #9 
Mar 2018
2·13 Posts 
@GP2
Has there really been no progress since 2008? Unfortunately as far as I know, not... 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Ramanujan Primes  reddwarf2956  Miscellaneous Math  14  20160304 23:02 
On a curius sighting of a pair of math constants in the deutrons as measure  Kathegetes  Miscellaneous Math  16  20140713 03:48 
Ramanujan  devarajkandadai  Math  11  20090812 17:01 
Lipschitz constants  hallstei  Homework Help  4  20090702 20:56 
Google.com's unhealthy obsession with famous mathematical constants  ewmayer  Lounge  3  20050821 18:09 