Determination of the error in calculating the number of primes in the interval
by the formula
problem that needs to be postponed, there is no approach to the solution.
But the same problem, but as the inverse formula
This calculation is the value (m), for a given number of prime numbers. The number of prime numbers correspond to the values of the numerical series
Q - The number of primes in the interval (P_n, m),
P_n - prime
(n) - a prime number
E - The error in the calculation
P_n - prime
(n) - a prime number
E - The error in the calculation
1) Objective: By changing the value of (Q) to obtain a value of (m), a numerical range of values of the number of primes in the interval (P_n, m), in which the error of calculation of the minimal and predictable.
Before I begin, I want to show you the results in tabular form, but without proof. Some opponents called my hazy evidence, however, does not support such claims, but still shows there is some reason, so far only the result.
Before I begin, I want to show you the results in tabular form, but without proof. Some opponents called my hazy evidence, however, does not support such claims, but still shows there is some reason, so far only the result.
(Q = 1,25 n) inverse formula by which we calculate the value (m) and obtain the interval (P_n, m), where the number of prime numbers is equal to (1,25 n) with an error of several units.
It's not the biggest mistakes, even in a few units. Look at the chart below, even if the gap of large composite numbers, and the column of the tabulated values of the number of primes in the interval, the result of a long time does not change. Catastrophic growth of the errors do not occur, since the values of (m) also increase. And the values of (m) are large gaps quickly from composite numbers. And the more the space of composite numbers, the faster the rise of the value (m). Here is the law and provides an opportunity to work with outside of the errors for a particular value (n). Probably not very clear, if I can find an unambiguous result, try to explain again.
It's not the biggest mistakes, even in a few units. Look at the chart below, even if the gap of large composite numbers, and the column of the tabulated values of the number of primes in the interval, the result of a long time does not change. Catastrophic growth of the errors do not occur, since the values of (m) also increase. And the values of (m) are large gaps quickly from composite numbers. And the more the space of composite numbers, the faster the rise of the value (m). Here is the law and provides an opportunity to work with outside of the errors for a particular value (n). Probably not very clear, if I can find an unambiguous result, try to explain again.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий