![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Aug 2006
176316 Posts |
![]() Quote:
![]() R. K. Guy, C. B. Lacampagne and J. L. Selfridge, Primes at a glance, Math. Comp. 48 (1987), 183-202. Agoh, Erdos, and Granville, Primes at a (somewhat lengthy) glance, The American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 104, No. 10, Dec., 1997, pages 943 to 945 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
233410 Posts |
![]() Quote:
n!-n <= m < n! -1 Thanks in advance. Last fiddled with by a1call on 2018-01-28 at 20:04 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
2×3×23×61 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
2×3×389 Posts |
![]()
What is the correct lower bound in your opinion?
Noting that the difference in your quoted post is only in the upper bounds. Last fiddled with by a1call on 2018-01-28 at 20:14 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
2·3·23·61 Posts |
![]()
Like I said it depends on n, you can go as low as n!-nextprime(n) at least. That follows from the fact that all numbers under nextprime(n) have a factor under n.
Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2018-01-28 at 20:21 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There
2×3×389 Posts |
![]()
So this is sum of the series all over again.
Last fiddled with by a1call on 2018-01-28 at 20:31 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Aug 2006
5,987 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Either way you have ~ n^2 numbers of size roughly n! which are divisible by none of the primes up to n. Heuristically this makes them \[\prod_{p\le n}\frac{p}{p-1} \approx e^{-\gamma}\log n\] times more likely to be prime than the average prime of its size, for an overall probability of \[\frac{e^{-\gamma}\log n}{\log n!} \approx \frac{e^{-\gamma}\log n}{n\log n} = \frac{e^{-\gamma}}{n}\] and an expected \[\frac{n^2}{\log(n^2)}\cdot\frac{e^{-\gamma}}{n} = \frac{e^{-\gamma}n}{2\log n}\] primes in the interval. The chance of having none is then \[\exp\left(-\frac{e^{-\gamma}n}{2\log n}\right)\] and since \[\int\exp\left(-\frac{e^{-\gamma}n}{2\log n}\right)\] converges there should be only finitely many you'd expect only finitely many intervals without primes. A quick check shows that the first 500 have primes, making the odds of any being empty around \[\int_{500.5}^{\infty}\exp\left(-\frac{e^{-\gamma}n}{2\log n}\right) \approx 4\cdot10^{-9}.\] |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Goldbach Conjecture | MattcAnderson | MattcAnderson | 4 | 2021-04-04 19:21 |
Goldbach's Conjecture | Patrick123 | Miscellaneous Math | 242 | 2011-03-15 14:28 |
Proof of Goldbach Conjecture | vector | Miscellaneous Math | 5 | 2007-12-01 14:43 |
Goldbach's conjecture | Citrix | Puzzles | 3 | 2005-09-09 13:58 |