--- Richard Schroeppel <rcs@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
Re: mu(Large)
Would taking several zeta zeros improve things? Maybe with weighted voting?
Why doesn't this give the same estimates for mu(Large) and mu(Large+1) and ... ? [Ed -- It does]
One might also try finding primes P that don't divide Large and guestimating mu(P*Large); this would reflect on the likely value of mu(Large).
This is in reference to my column at http://www.maa.org/editorial/mathgames/mathgames_11_03_03.html Adding lots of zeta zeros definitely helps. I foresee this being used as a method of cherry-picking previously unfactored hundred-digit composites. If there are strong indications of three factors by this zeta method, then it is worthwhile to attack those numbers first. This could be used for the unfactored numbers at http://www.uow.edu.au/~ajw01/ecm/curves.html I'm very grateful to mathfunner Fred W. Helenius for pointing out to me that Gauss used the Moebius function in Disquisitiones Arithmeticae (when Moebius was 10 years old). --Ed Pegg Jr, www.mathpuzzle.com