On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:15:13 +0100, Jack <jj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote in <news:ywahk.20062$WX2.2888@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> in
alt.algebra.help:
> To put it another way, if I define the following set (and
> please do feel free to help me [in the usual way :-)] by
> improving upon the articluation), using my old function
> t as the number of primes in a subset of P (which is the
> set of all primes whose value does not exceed sqrt 2y),
Is this supposed to be sqrt(y)? I'll be assuming that it
is.
> which I call J, (here, it is written as to be equal to P)
> that divide n, and a(P) as the product of all members of
> P,
In other words, this P is my P(y), and this a(P) is my m(y).
> "Let D(y,t_{P}) be the set of integers n in [1,y] for
> which t_{P}(n)>0,
More intelligibly: the set of integers n in [1, y] that are
divisible by at least one member of P.
> excluding the first
> (o(1,a(P}),t_P)(y) / a(P})
I presume that both instances of 'a(P}' were supposed to be
'a(P)'. I assume further that the opening '(' and closing
')' are meaningless clutter. Fixing those errors leaves:
o(1,a(P)),t_P)(y) / a(P)
This is incomprehensible: the parentheses don't balance, and
you've not told me what this 'o' thing is.
> such, to the nearest whole number"
> unless you are saying that the number of primes in [1,y]
> gets increasingly [greater] than (o(1,a(P}),t_P) (y) / a(P})
> in pro****tion to y, you appear to be saying that for an
> interval [1,y], |D| gets ever greater in pro****tion to y.
> Am I interpreting you correctly?
I have no idea.
|
