I haven't seen this use of "on" before; a new bit of mathematical jargon for me. It took me a Wikipedia reference to figure out that "on Elliott-Halberstam" meant "on the condition that the Elliott-Halberstam Conjecture is true". On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Charles Greathouse < charles.greathouse@case.edu> wrote:
All the chatter so far has been positive, but the preprint still has yet to be released.
If correct this would be the first unconditional proof that such an N exists. Goldston-Pintz-Yildirim showed N <= 16 on Elliott-Halberstam.
Charles Greathouse Analyst/Programmer Case Western Reserve University
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
Zhang's recent paper asserts that there is some integer below 70 million such that infinitely many pairs of primes differ by that integer.
Does anyone know if this theorem is generally accepted, (or can we assume that its publication in the Annals is sufficient evidence that it's correct) ?
And, was it previously unknown that there exists any integer N such that infinitely many pairs of primes differ by N ?
Thanks,
Dan
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun