I'll start:

Let

RavySnake

I'll start:

Let

8 months ago

TurtleCat

[math]\epsilon <0[/math]

8 months ago

RumChicken

[math]: \epsilon = - 1/12[/math]

8 months ago

eGremlin

nigger

8 months ago

CouchChiller

Assuming

8 months ago

ZeroReborn

the circumference of

8 months ago

eGremlin

Lebesguian

8 months ago

PurpleCharger

in each Kafkaesque category

8 months ago

BunnyJinx

of second-order

8 months ago

Spazyfool

let [math]\eta[/math] be a non-trivial zero, [math]\mathbb{C}[/math] doesn't exist because [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] doesn't exist and there are no number above [math]10^{300}[/math] therefore [math]\eta < 10^{300}[/math] and thus...

8 months ago

Lunatick

nigger tongue my anus

8 months ago

King_Martha

@BunnyJinx

on the induced topology of the n+1 dimensional semi-spheroids with the Manhattan metric

8 months ago

Inmate

@Bidwell

I actually thought there was something interesting to discover here. Thanks for ruining it for me.

8 months ago

Firespawn

Quantum-deterministic

8 months ago

girlDog

classical

8 months ago

Need_TLC

contravariant

8 months ago

Harmless_Venom

statically indeterminant

8 months ago

5mileys

frobenioid

8 months ago

cum2soon

constant

8 months ago

askme

variable

8 months ago

idontknow

.

8 months ago

hairygrape

If

8 months ago

Gigastrength

Could someone sum up, how would this function tell us about the number of primes in some region?

And the main question does calculating the number of primes using this function in some region is less demanding than classical (standard) methods?

Also, what are some areas, where knowing how many primes are in some region can be useful?

8 months ago

Deadlyinx

[math] \blacksquare [/math]

8 months ago

Methnerd

When

8 months ago

LuckyDusty

[eqn]e^x=0[/eqn]

8 months ago

Stupidasole

ΞΆ(z)

8 months ago

happy_sad

because God said so

8 months ago

Carnalpleasure

such that

8 months ago

Flameblow

there exist

8 months ago

LuckyDusty

@Gigastrength

I up this. Any kindanon explain this like you'd do it for a retard please.

8 months ago

StonedTime

for all x in A

8 months ago

FastChef

@RavySnake

mfw an infinite number of anons hitting keys at random on their mechanical keyboards will never ever type a proof confirming or refuting the Riemann hypothesis

8 months ago

Stupidasole

an covariant inversion on the n-manifold

8 months ago

Nude_Bikergirl

@TechHater

nigger, why would you make it [math]<0[/math] though

nicely added comma

8 months ago

Methshot

pg144 odds-only

8 months ago

Methnerd

p-adic numbers

8 months ago

Flameblow

QED

8 months ago

King_Martha

@Gigastrength

@ZeroReborn

Prime number theorem (pi(x) ~ (approaches) x/lnx, where pi(x) is the prime counting function, e.g. pi(2)=1, pi(10)=pi(9)=4) is equivalent to the statement [math]\zeta(a+ib) \neq 0 : a=0[/math], or that it has no zeros with real part s = 0. There is no elementary proof of prime number theorem, as of yet, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining exactly how this connection works and why, but basically, let [math]\displaystyle R(x)=1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac {(\ln{x})^n} {nn!\zeta(n+1)} [/math] (that +1 comes in because 1 isn't prime, but some equations act like it is), [math]R(x)-\pi(x)=\sum\limits_{\rho} R(x^\rho)[/math] where [math]\rho[/math] is a nontrivial zero of zeta.

Note that none of this really can be applied to anything, despite what popsci articles tell you. We already know primes larger than computers even bother to use, and lookup tables for factorizations have already been made. Besides, all that the Riemann hypothesis does to solve this is allow approximations of pi(x). For example, if it's true, [math]\pi(x)=Li(x)+O(sqrt(x)\ln(x))[/math] where [math]Li(x)=\int_2^x\frac {dt} {\ln{t}} [/math] (which doesn't have a closed form expression).

8 months ago

Spamalot

@King_Martha

Oops, I mean a=1, not a=0 for that top statement. I'm pretty sure the a=0 case is trivial, but I forget now.

8 months ago