20170720, 17:18  #67 
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
B98_{16} Posts 
Sorry, I meant it followed *very* roughly the CSG ratio but not in magnitude, I meant in a very non rigorous sence that the current known peak was the same place as for CSG and it was low and very low the same places, i.e. it followed CSG better than the Merit at least. But it would have probably been better saying nothing than just hand waving, good thing RDS is not here.
Here are the updated values even though Robert beat me to it: Code:
Gn Merit gn/(ln(pn)^2 FordGreenKonyaginMaynardTao Pn 15900 39.62015365 0.09872683 20.31243105 1.936933265397289504398811903696*10^174 18306 38.06696007 0.07915948 18.72974074 7.041097148478282668812106731813*10^208 10716 36.85828850 0.12677617 20.45427745 1.839377720243795270729953508768*10^126 13692 36.59018324 0.09778276 19.07131098 3.254185929142547441117000456865*10^162 26892 36.42056789 0.04932537 16.38392439 4.696226774889053656642126142794*10^320 66520 35.42445941 0.01886489 13.50196237 3.292808201042179724620296543360*10^815 1476 35.31030807 0.84472754 45.22507308 1425172824437699411 1442 34.97568651 0.84833471 45.29864017 804212830686677669 1454 34.11893253 0.80062005 43.03407437 3219107182492871783 1370 33.76518602 0.83218087 44.30979390 418032645936712127 1132 32.28254764 0.92063859 48.34468117 1693182318746371 4680156 20.37666041 0.00008872 4.50159088 5.104776509199087740248075761182*10^99749 6582144 13.18288411 0.00002640 2.73531863 8.465069837806447347636518542879*10^216840 5103138 10.22031845 0.00002047 2.12060937 7.695421151871542659687327631743*10^216848 Last fiddled with by ATH on 20170720 at 17:21 
20170720, 18:00  #68 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
100110000010_{2} Posts 
So, does that mean that the gap, evaluated with FGKMT valued below 45 (around) are bound for improvement?
What FGKMT value has the CFC 800 gap? or is it a range thing? ( the higer the gap, the lower the new score is?) Last fiddled with by firejuggler on 20170720 at 18:03 
20170720, 18:45  #69 
"Dana Jacobsen"
Feb 2011
Bangkok, TH
2×3×151 Posts 
Section 1.1 of the FGKMT paper notes that "These conjectures are well beyond the reach of our methods" with regard to Cramér and Granville.
So far the CSG ratio has been a pretty good predictor. One of the interesting things about prime gaps is seeing how well it fits, though that is hampered for large gaps by the sheer magnitude of numbers. The exhaustive search is more useful in this regard. I, and Dr. Nicely if I infer his meaning in an email he sent me, expect much higher merits to exist at those 120300 digit sizes, based purely on the CSG values of ~0.1. He notes that in theory there is a 500 digit P1 with a merit of 1000+. Our search methods just aren't good enough (or alternately we need to get busy turning the inner planets into computronium). So yes, I believe all those first gaps shown  the highest merits we've found so far  are doomed to be overtaken with much larger merits. The large ones as well, though those have a different set of computational challenges. 
20170720, 19:12  #70  
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
2^{3}×7×53 Posts 
Quote:
800 CFC TRNicely 1996 23.66 15 486258341004083 The "FGKMT" constant is 36.75172943 In the paper CRGreathouse linked they say: G(X) >> log X* loglog X * loglogloglog X / logloglog X "For any sufficiently large X" and "The implied constant is effective." ?? where G(X) = max(Pn+1  Pn) for Pn+1 < X So the maximum prime gap between 1 and X is "much larger" >> than the formula "for any sufficiently large X", I'm not sure if that means that the constant > infinity for X>infinity ? But I do not think that means, that because we got a value of 48.34 at 1.7*10^15 there has to be gaps of at least 48 at the 100200 digit level where the current highest Merit gaps are found. Regarding the Merit E. Westzynthius proved that the Merit > infinity as X>infinity, but I assumed that a Merit of 1000+ was out of our current reach at the miliions or billions of digits, but I guess it is possible. Last fiddled with by ATH on 20170720 at 19:13 

20170721, 18:09  #71  
Aug 2006
3^{2}·659 Posts 
Quote:
G(X) > G * log X* loglog X * loglogloglog X / logloglog X for all X > X0. Informally, >> is "asymptotically at least as large as" (up to a nonzero constant multiple). "The implied constant is effective" means that not only does such a constant G exist, but that their method makes it possible to compute such a constant (though they have not done so). They did not prove that the constant can be taken arbitrarily large (I assume this is what you mean by "the constant > infinity") though 'of course' it can, we just can't prove it. When you look at large gaps and see worse performance it's because you're comparing the maximal gaps at small sizes to almostsurelysubmaximal gaps at large sizes. Right, and these results are stronger versions of Westzynthius' theorem. 

20180331, 16:07  #72 
Dec 2008
you know...around...
2×13×23 Posts 
I know that the definition of Merit = gap / log(p) = (p_{2}p_{1}) / log(p_{1}) is deeply immersed in mathematic literature, and the following suggestion only has an impact on small numbers, but:
For my own calculations and considerations, I often use the Gram formula (x) ~ G(x) = 1+ Then, with Merit = G(p_{2})G(p_{1}), the CramérShanksGranville ratio would be (I always found it irritating that CSG can be >1 for the first few gaps, but with the Gram formula, this is not the case. Does this idea have any supporters?) Using this method of computation, I made a regression graph for all know CFCs. The xaxis is CSG. Note that the exponent in the regression is close to 2, suggesting that might well be the upper bound for CSG. If instead I let x=1CSG, the exponent is somewhere around 2.4. This probably doesn't tell us anything useful, but I just wanted to share some of my thoughts, lest they go to waste. Last fiddled with by mart_r on 20180331 at 16:59 Reason: n, p, where's the difference anyway... 
20180404, 08:42  #73  
Jun 2003
Oxford, UK
2·13·73 Posts 
Quote:
I've noticed that large gaps which are not 0mod6 follow a general straight line rule that is evident for example in the post http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...39&postcount=7 The graph is reposted here. The spikes are 0mod6 counts of prime gaps in the range. Let us assumed the vertical axis is y and the horizontal x. The intersect of the straight line at y=0 is of interest. It is dependent on the size of the sample range from which the prime gap count has ben taken  increasing the size of the sample range will increase the value of x at the intersect. I would conject that all first instance gaps would be located in an area beyond the y=0 intersect and I would suggest that one bounding limit on your graph (the right hand side or top side unless I'm mistaken) would be defined as in terms of x where the straight line intersects with y=0 on my graph. The intersect would be inferred from the xy formula for a sample range close to the p which is the lower prime in the gap. As can be seen from my graph, gaps beyond the y=0 intersect are super rare, and these freak instances appear to be nonpredictable. There were only 14 gaps beyond 640 in the sample range of 230,453,215 gaps and only 7 of these were not 0mod6. None of these large gaps were even remotely close to a first instance gap  for that the testing range would statistically need to be much larger. By increasing the testing range, the y=0 intersect is forced a lot further to the right (i.e. higher x) is but I think the same general observations relating to the randomness of candidates beyond y=0 intersect would still apply. You should definitely explore this further by taking out gaps that are 0mod 6 from your data set, and refocusing your best fit lines on the bounding limits on the two sides of the scatter data. 

20181111, 15:52  #74 
May 2018
C3_{16} Posts 
I have found a new gap value (glog^{2}(p)+(2*log(p)*log(log(p))))/log(p). I call it the Jacobs ratio. It appears to have the same distribution on all maximal prime gaps. It is very fun.

20181111, 18:49  #75  
Aug 2006
1011100101011_{2} Posts 
Quote:
\[ \ell^2  2\ell\log\ell \] but not larger, up to lowerorder terms? (where \(\ell = \log p\)) Last fiddled with by CRGreathouse on 20181111 at 18:55 

20181113, 23:31  #76 
May 2018
303_{8} Posts 
Yes.

20200826, 16:14  #77 
Dec 2008
you know...around...
1001010110_{2} Posts 
The quest for exceptionally large gaps: challenging Granville
The title should be turned into a movie, methinks...
Usually we would expect that a gap of at least merit M (=gap/log(p)) appears asymptotically with probability between two consecutive primes p and p+gap. When aiming for gaps with CSG around unity, i.e. M approaching log(p), this approximation becomes distorted and in fact produces wrong results when M>log(p). Case in point: the density of gaps with merit >=M between consecutive primes appears to be on average for integer M with the following values a_{M}: Code:
M a_M 1 1.53 2 1.9 3 5.3 4 10 5 14 6 19 7 23 8 28 9 32 * The TEX expression doesn't work and I can't figure out why. Anyway it's in the graph in the attachment.  Could there be any error in the approach given here? The numbers are relatively stable between e^{30} and e^{100}, but tend slightly more to the negative side after that; is my approach still justified? Is there a plausible way to "fix" it if necessary?  Suppose it could be shown that a_{M} diverges fast enough, could this be used to argue against Granville's 2e^{y} log²p? Does it intersect Maier's thesis?  I've only spent about a day on finding these numbers; is it worth pursuing the calculation further, to obtain some more/more precise numbers? Has someone else already done the number crunching work?  Is it nonsense what I'm doing here and should I go read some more papers on prime gaps before persecuting any more mindless numerology and asking countless questions? 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Basic Number Theory 4: a first look at prime numbers  Nick  Number Theory Discussion Group  6  20161014 19:38 
Before you post your new theory about prime, remember  firejuggler  Math  0  20160711 23:09 
Mersene Prime and Number Theory  Ricie  Miscellaneous Math  24  20090814 15:31 
online tutoring in prime number theory  jasong  Math  3  20050515 04:01 
Prime Theory  clowns789  Miscellaneous Math  5  20040108 17:09 