I may not be understanding your point, Hans, because it doesn't seem to rebut Joerg's objection. If ...104 is the value of the partial sum to 10^16, then the actual value of Brun's constant cannot be smaller than that, and (presuming the accuracy of the easier-to-calculate Catalan and Ramanujan-Soldner constants) this would rule out Lesniak's conjecture. The "should be around" suggestion can be read as an expectation that the final sum is between ...104 and ...500. On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Hans Havermann <gladhobo@bell.net> wrote:
I don't think the last three (or possibly even four) OEIS terms are necessarily warranted.
http://numbers.computation.free.fr/Constants/Primes/twin.html
Here we see 1.902160583104... as the value for primes to 10^16 followed by a suggestion that the (final) value "should be around 1.902160583..."
On Aug 6, 2018, at 3:45 AM, Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> wrote:
Value for Brun's constant below vs. OEIS value (A065421) is 1.9021605831029730799822614917... 1.902160583104
If the OEIS value is a lower bound then the conjectured formula is incorrect.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun