I'll start:

Let

RavySnake

I'll start:

Let

13 days ago

TurtleCat

[math]\epsilon <0[/math]

13 days ago

RumChicken

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

13 days ago

eGremlin

nigger

13 days ago

CouchChiller

Assuming

13 days ago

ZeroReborn

the circumference of

13 days ago

eGremlin

Lebesguian

13 days ago

PurpleCharger

in each Kafkaesque category

13 days ago

BunnyJinx

of second-order

13 days 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...

13 days ago

Lunatick

nigger tongue my anus

13 days ago

King_Martha

@BunnyJinx

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

13 days ago

Inmate

@Bidwell

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

13 days ago

Firespawn

Quantum-deterministic

13 days ago

girlDog

classical

13 days ago

Need_TLC

contravariant

13 days ago

Harmless_Venom

statically indeterminant

13 days ago

5mileys

frobenioid

13 days ago

cum2soon

constant

13 days ago

askme

variable

13 days ago

idontknow

.

13 days ago

hairygrape

If

13 days 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?

13 days ago

Deadlyinx

[math] \blacksquare [/math]

13 days ago

Methnerd

When

13 days ago

LuckyDusty

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

13 days ago

Stupidasole

ΞΆ(z)

13 days ago

happy_sad

because God said so

13 days ago

Carnalpleasure

such that

13 days ago

Flameblow

there exist

13 days ago

LuckyDusty

@Gigastrength

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

13 days ago

StonedTime

for all x in A

13 days 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

13 days ago

Stupidasole

an covariant inversion on the n-manifold

13 days ago

Nude_Bikergirl

@TechHater

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

nicely added comma

13 days ago

Methshot

pg144 odds-only

13 days ago

Methnerd

p-adic numbers

13 days ago

Flameblow

QED

13 days 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).

13 days 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.

13 days ago