A023193 a(n) gives the largest number k for which there is at least one admissible k-tuple taken from [0, 1, ..., n-1] if the tuple starts with 0. Admissibility is defined in a comment.
1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 13, 13, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 15, 15, 15, 15, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 17, 17, 17, 17, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 19, 19, 19, 19, 20, 20
Offset: 1
References
- Douglas Hensley and Ian Richards, "On the incompatibility of two conjectures concerning primes". Analytic number theory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XXIV, St. Louis Univ., St. Louis, Mo., 1972), pp. 123-127.
- P. Ribenboim, The New Book of Prime Number Records, Springer-Verlag, NY, 1996, ch. 6, I, pp. 372-386.
Links
- Charles R Greathouse IV, Table of n, a(n) for n = 1..2330 (based on Engelsma's data)
- L. E. Dickson, A new extension of Dirichlet's theorem on prime numbers, Messenger of Math. 33 (1904) pp. 155-161.
- Thomas J Engelsma, k-tuple: Permissible patterns
- T. Forbes, Prime k-tuplets.
- D. Hensley and I. Richards, Primes in intervals, Acta Arith. 25 (1974), pp. 375-391.
- Ian Richards, On the incompatibility of two conjectures concerning primes; a discussion of the use of computers in attacking a theoretical problem, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 80:3 (1974), pp. 419-438.
- A. Schinzel, Remarks on the paper `Sur certaines hypothèses concernant les nombres premiers', Acta Arithmetica 7 (1961), pp. 1-8 (with Dickson conjecture reference).
- A. Schinzel and W. Sierpiński, Sur certaines hypothèses concernant les nombres premiers, Acta Arithmetica 4,3 (1958), pp. 185-208, Théorème 1, p. 201; erratum 5 (1958) p. 259.
- Eric Weisstein's World of Mathematics, k-Tuple Conjecture.
- Wikipedia, Dickson's conjecture.
Crossrefs
Formula
Conjecturally, a(n) = lim sup pi(x+n)-pi(x), where pi = A000720. This would follow from the k-tuple conjecture. - David W. Wilson, May 23 2005
a(n) = minimum m such that A008407(m) >= n. - Max Alekseyev, Nov 03 2008
Richards shows that a(n) > n/log n + kn/log^2 n + o(n/log^2 n), where k = 1 + log 2 = 1.69... . In particular, a(n) > pi(n) for large enough n. Hensley & Richards 1974 cite a result of Montgomery & Vaughan "to appear" that a(n) <= 2*pi(n) for n >= 2. - Charles R Greathouse IV, Apr 16 2013
Extensions
Name corrected by Wolfdieter Lang, Oct 10 2017
Comments