I'll start:

Let

RavySnake

I'll start:

Let

1 month ago

TurtleCat

[math]\epsilon <0[/math]

1 month ago

RumChicken

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

1 month ago

eGremlin

nigger

1 month ago

CouchChiller

Assuming

1 month ago

ZeroReborn

the circumference of

1 month ago

eGremlin

Lebesguian

1 month ago

PurpleCharger

in each Kafkaesque category

1 month ago

BunnyJinx

of second-order

1 month 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...

1 month ago

Lunatick

nigger tongue my anus

1 month ago

King_Martha

@BunnyJinx

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

1 month ago

Inmate

@Bidwell

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

1 month ago

Firespawn

Quantum-deterministic

1 month ago

girlDog

classical

1 month ago

Need_TLC

contravariant

1 month ago

Harmless_Venom

statically indeterminant

1 month ago

5mileys

frobenioid

1 month ago

cum2soon

constant

1 month ago

askme

variable

1 month ago

idontknow

.

1 month ago

hairygrape

If

1 month 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?

1 month ago

Deadlyinx

[math] \blacksquare [/math]

1 month ago

Methnerd

When

1 month ago

LuckyDusty

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

1 month ago

Stupidasole

ΞΆ(z)

1 month ago

happy_sad

because God said so

1 month ago

Carnalpleasure

such that

1 month ago

Flameblow

there exist

1 month ago

LuckyDusty

@Gigastrength

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

1 month ago

StonedTime

for all x in A

1 month 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

1 month ago

Stupidasole

an covariant inversion on the n-manifold

1 month ago

Nude_Bikergirl

@TechHater

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

nicely added comma

1 month ago

Methshot

pg144 odds-only

1 month ago

Methnerd

p-adic numbers

1 month ago

Flameblow

QED

1 month 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).

1 month 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.

1 month ago