So now imagine a sequence where a_1 = 2 a_{n + 1} = the next prime after (a_n)^3 This sequence goes 2, 11, 1361, 2521008887, ...
-
Show this thread
-
The interesting thing about this sequence is that because there's a prime between any two cubes, we know that a_{n + 1} is between (a_n)^3 and (a_n + 1)^3 a_{n + 1} can't be any larger than that
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
This means in turn that the cube root of a_{n + 1} is strictly between a_n and a_n + 1 (I'm going somewhere with this)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
For example, the cube root of 11 is 2.2... < 3 the cube root of 1361 is 11.082... < 12 the cube root of 2521008887 is 1361.000001... < 1362 and so on forever
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
So imagine you took *all* the cube roots instead of just one. You get a sequence which goes ∛2 ∛∛11 ∛∛∛1361 ∛∛∛∛2521008887 ...
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Or to put it another way 1.25992104989... 1.30529988079... 1.30637788382... 1.30637788386... ... We have essentially proved that this sequence converges to a value, which we'll call A
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @istandleet
Yes, totally. Without a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis we just have to start at a higher prime than 2, specifically the first prime after e^e^34
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
We've proven that such a number exists (see the thread), plenty of them in fact, the only question is what is the smallest such number. This is eminently computable
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.