[過去ﾛｸﾞ] 高木くんがアクセプトされるまで見守るスレ ★4 (1002ﾚｽ)
上下前次1-新
抽出解除 必死ﾁｪｯｶｰ(本家) (べ) 自ID ﾚｽ栞 あぼーん
このｽﾚｯﾄﾞは過去ﾛｸﾞ倉庫に格納されています｡
次ｽﾚ検索 歴削→次ｽﾚ 栞削→次ｽﾚ 過去ﾛｸﾞﾒﾆｭｰ
746(1): ◆pObFevaelafK [sage] 2023/07/29(土)19:24 ID:3mRZQXR+(1/7)
Another proof of Legendre's (Oppermann's) conjecture
Let m and n be integers. We suppose p_n is the smallest prime number
among primes greater than m^2 and consider the following inequalities hold.
m^2<p_n<p_(n+1)<(m+1)^2
p_(n+1)-p_n<2m+1
According to Cramer's conjecture,
p_(n+1)-p_n<(log(p_n))^2
holds for n≧5.
Since according to Dusart's inequality,
p_n<n(log(n)+log(log(n))) holds for n≧6,
log(p_n)<log(n(log(n)+log(log(n))))
holds.
p_(n+1)-p_n<(log(n(log(n)+log(log(n)))))^2
By the way,
m+1>√p_(n+1)
holds. Since according to Dusart's inequality,
p_n>n(log(n)+log(log(n))-1) holds for n≧2,
√p_(n+1)>√((n+1)(log(n+1)+log(log(n+1))-1))
m+1>√((n+1)(log(n+1)+log(log(n+1))-1))
2m+1>2√((n+1)(log(n+1)+log(log(n+1))-1))-1
holds. 2m+1 is the distance between m^2 and (m+1)^2.
We consider the following inequality.
(log(n(log(n)+log(log(n)))))^2<2√((n+1)(log(n+1)+log(log(n+1))-1))-1
It is confirmed that this inequality holds for n≧73 by numeric computation.
Therefore, p_(n+1)-p_n is smaller than 2m+1 for m≧19.
747: ◆pObFevaelafK [sage] 2023/07/29(土)19:59 ID:3mRZQXR+(2/7)
>>746
これは間違い。
748(1): ◆pObFevaelafK [sage] 2023/07/29(土)20:04 ID:3mRZQXR+(3/7)
Another proof of Legendre's conjecture
Let p_n be the largest prime number among the primes smaller than m^2.
We assume that the following inequalities hold.
p_n<m^2<(m+1)^2<p_(n+1)
According to Cramer's conjecture,
p_(n+1)-p_n<log(p_n)
holds for n≧5.
The following equality must hold when this inequalities hold.
2m+1<log(p_n)
√p_n<m
2√(p_n)+1<2m+1
Since according to Dusart's inequality,
p_n>n(log(n)+log(log(n))-1) holds for n≧2,
2√(n(log(n)+log(log(n))-1))+1<2m+1
holds.
Since according to Dusart's inequality,
p_n<n(log(n)+log(log(n))) holds for n≧6,
log(p_n)<log(n(log(n)+log(log(n))))
holds.
From the above,
2√(n(log(n)+log(log(n))-1))+1<log(n(log(n)+log(log(n))))
holds. However, this equality does not hold for n≧3.
Therefore, there are at least one prime between m^2 and (m+1)^2 for m≧3
since 2m+1<log(p_n) does not hold for n≧6 and the assumption is false.
749(1): ◆pObFevaelafK [sage] 2023/07/29(土)20:09 ID:3mRZQXR+(4/7)
>>748 推敲版
Another proof of Legendre's conjecture
Let p_n be the largest prime number among the primes smaller than m^2.
We assume that the following inequalities hold.
p_n<m^2<(m+1)^2<p_(n+1)
According to Cramer's conjecture,
p_(n+1)-p_n<log(p_n)
holds for n≧5.
The following inequality must hold when this inequalities hold.
2m+1<log(p_n)
√p_n<m
2√(p_n)+1<2m+1
Since according to Dusart's inequality,
p_n>n(log(n)+log(log(n))-1) holds for n≧2,
2√(n(log(n)+log(log(n))-1))+1<2m+1
holds.
Since according to Dusart's inequality,
p_n<n(log(n)+log(log(n))) holds for n≧6,
log(p_n)<log(n(log(n)+log(log(n))))
holds.
From the above,
2√(n(log(n)+log(log(n))-1))+1<log(n(log(n)+log(log(n))))
holds. However, this inequality does not hold for n≧3.
Therefore, there are at least one prime between m^2 and (m+1)^2 for m≧3
since 2m+1<log(p_n) does not hold for n≧6 and the assumption is false.
750(3): ◆pObFevaelafK [sage] 2023/07/29(土)20:17 ID:3mRZQXR+(5/7)
>>749 再推敲
Another proof of Legendre's conjecture
Let p_n be the largest prime number among the primes smaller than m^2.
We assume that the following inequalities hold.
p_n<m^2<(m+1)^2<p_(n+1)
According to Cramer's conjecture,
p_(n+1)-p_n<(log(p_n))^2
holds for n≧5.
The following inequality must hold when this inequalities hold.
2m+1<(log(p_n))^2
√p_n<m
2√(p_n)+1<2m+1
Since according to Dusart's inequality,
p_n>n(log(n)+log(log(n))-1) holds for n≧2,
2√(n(log(n)+log(log(n))-1))+1<2m+1
holds.
Since according to Dusart's inequality,
p_n<n(log(n)+log(log(n))) holds for n≧6,
log(p_n)<log(n(log(n)+log(log(n))))
holds.
From the above,
2√(n(log(n)+log(log(n))-1))+1<(log(n(log(n)+log(log(n)))))^2
holds. However, it is confirmed that this inequality does not hold for
n≧58 by numeric computation.
Therefore, there are at least one prime between m^2 and (m+1)^2 for m≧16
since 2m+1<log(p_n) does not hold for n≧58 and the assumption is false.
751: ◆pObFevaelafK [sage] 2023/07/29(土)20:18 ID:3mRZQXR+(6/7)
>>750 訂正
×this
〇these
752: ◆pObFevaelafK [sage] 2023/07/29(土)21:17 ID:3mRZQXR+(7/7)
>>750 訂正
×since 2m+1<log(p_n)
〇since 2m+1<(log(p_n))^2
上下前次1-新書関写板覧索設栞歴
ｽﾚ情報 赤ﾚｽ抽出 画像ﾚｽ抽出 歴の未読ｽﾚ AAｻﾑﾈｲﾙ
ぬこの手 ぬこTOP 0.032s