consecutive prime gaps and explicit bound
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I am aware of the theorem that $p_n+1- p_n leq n^0.525$ which is true for all sufficiently large numbers due to Baker, but if i want to make the implicit "for all sufficiently large numbers" explicit, is it known that $p_n+1-p_n leq c n^alpha$ for all $n geq 1$ and for small $c$, lets say $c leq 2$ and $alpha leq 0.55$ ?
Any ref that can give me the explicit numbers or a way to construct them would be great.
Thank you, also i posted the question yesterday on MSE
nt.number-theory reference-request analytic-number-theory prime-numbers prime-gaps
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I am aware of the theorem that $p_n+1- p_n leq n^0.525$ which is true for all sufficiently large numbers due to Baker, but if i want to make the implicit "for all sufficiently large numbers" explicit, is it known that $p_n+1-p_n leq c n^alpha$ for all $n geq 1$ and for small $c$, lets say $c leq 2$ and $alpha leq 0.55$ ?
Any ref that can give me the explicit numbers or a way to construct them would be great.
Thank you, also i posted the question yesterday on MSE
nt.number-theory reference-request analytic-number-theory prime-numbers prime-gaps
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I am aware of the theorem that $p_n+1- p_n leq n^0.525$ which is true for all sufficiently large numbers due to Baker, but if i want to make the implicit "for all sufficiently large numbers" explicit, is it known that $p_n+1-p_n leq c n^alpha$ for all $n geq 1$ and for small $c$, lets say $c leq 2$ and $alpha leq 0.55$ ?
Any ref that can give me the explicit numbers or a way to construct them would be great.
Thank you, also i posted the question yesterday on MSE
nt.number-theory reference-request analytic-number-theory prime-numbers prime-gaps
I am aware of the theorem that $p_n+1- p_n leq n^0.525$ which is true for all sufficiently large numbers due to Baker, but if i want to make the implicit "for all sufficiently large numbers" explicit, is it known that $p_n+1-p_n leq c n^alpha$ for all $n geq 1$ and for small $c$, lets say $c leq 2$ and $alpha leq 0.55$ ?
Any ref that can give me the explicit numbers or a way to construct them would be great.
Thank you, also i posted the question yesterday on MSE
nt.number-theory reference-request analytic-number-theory prime-numbers prime-gaps
nt.number-theory reference-request analytic-number-theory prime-numbers prime-gaps
edited yesterday
GH from MO
56.4k5138214
56.4k5138214
asked yesterday
Ahmad
35019
35019
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The result you quote is due to Baker-Harman-Pintz (2000). I am not aware of any concrete effective version of this result, but if you increase the exponent $0.525$ to $2/3$, then such a variant is available by the work of Dudek. See also my response to this MO question.
Thx, so is there $alpha <1$ such that $cleq 2$ and $n_0$ or $x_0$ is small say less than $10^10$ or $10^12 $ ?
â Ahmad
yesterday
@Ahmad: Dudek's result implies that if $n$ is very-very large (doubly exponentially large), then $p_n+1-p_n<n^3/4$. It is not clear to me what can be said for smaller $n$'s unconditionally.
â GH from MO
yesterday
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The result you quote is due to Baker-Harman-Pintz (2000). I am not aware of any concrete effective version of this result, but if you increase the exponent $0.525$ to $2/3$, then such a variant is available by the work of Dudek. See also my response to this MO question.
Thx, so is there $alpha <1$ such that $cleq 2$ and $n_0$ or $x_0$ is small say less than $10^10$ or $10^12 $ ?
â Ahmad
yesterday
@Ahmad: Dudek's result implies that if $n$ is very-very large (doubly exponentially large), then $p_n+1-p_n<n^3/4$. It is not clear to me what can be said for smaller $n$'s unconditionally.
â GH from MO
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The result you quote is due to Baker-Harman-Pintz (2000). I am not aware of any concrete effective version of this result, but if you increase the exponent $0.525$ to $2/3$, then such a variant is available by the work of Dudek. See also my response to this MO question.
Thx, so is there $alpha <1$ such that $cleq 2$ and $n_0$ or $x_0$ is small say less than $10^10$ or $10^12 $ ?
â Ahmad
yesterday
@Ahmad: Dudek's result implies that if $n$ is very-very large (doubly exponentially large), then $p_n+1-p_n<n^3/4$. It is not clear to me what can be said for smaller $n$'s unconditionally.
â GH from MO
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The result you quote is due to Baker-Harman-Pintz (2000). I am not aware of any concrete effective version of this result, but if you increase the exponent $0.525$ to $2/3$, then such a variant is available by the work of Dudek. See also my response to this MO question.
The result you quote is due to Baker-Harman-Pintz (2000). I am not aware of any concrete effective version of this result, but if you increase the exponent $0.525$ to $2/3$, then such a variant is available by the work of Dudek. See also my response to this MO question.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
GH from MO
56.4k5138214
56.4k5138214
Thx, so is there $alpha <1$ such that $cleq 2$ and $n_0$ or $x_0$ is small say less than $10^10$ or $10^12 $ ?
â Ahmad
yesterday
@Ahmad: Dudek's result implies that if $n$ is very-very large (doubly exponentially large), then $p_n+1-p_n<n^3/4$. It is not clear to me what can be said for smaller $n$'s unconditionally.
â GH from MO
yesterday
add a comment |Â
Thx, so is there $alpha <1$ such that $cleq 2$ and $n_0$ or $x_0$ is small say less than $10^10$ or $10^12 $ ?
â Ahmad
yesterday
@Ahmad: Dudek's result implies that if $n$ is very-very large (doubly exponentially large), then $p_n+1-p_n<n^3/4$. It is not clear to me what can be said for smaller $n$'s unconditionally.
â GH from MO
yesterday
Thx, so is there $alpha <1$ such that $cleq 2$ and $n_0$ or $x_0$ is small say less than $10^10$ or $10^12 $ ?
â Ahmad
yesterday
Thx, so is there $alpha <1$ such that $cleq 2$ and $n_0$ or $x_0$ is small say less than $10^10$ or $10^12 $ ?
â Ahmad
yesterday
@Ahmad: Dudek's result implies that if $n$ is very-very large (doubly exponentially large), then $p_n+1-p_n<n^3/4$. It is not clear to me what can be said for smaller $n$'s unconditionally.
â GH from MO
yesterday
@Ahmad: Dudek's result implies that if $n$ is very-very large (doubly exponentially large), then $p_n+1-p_n<n^3/4$. It is not clear to me what can be said for smaller $n$'s unconditionally.
â GH from MO
yesterday
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f312236%2fconsecutive-prime-gaps-and-explicit-bound%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password