... stops marking at sqrt(N), and remember to insert the 2 in the list). While you walk through the list of primes up to 2^25, you can calculate how many numbers up to 2^50 it takes out as not squarefree, but you need to calculate how many doubles you had. This can be done by accumulation: 4 takes out 1/4 of the numbers, keep 1/4 in mind. 9 takes out 1/9 of the numbers, but 1/4 ...
... that stops marking at sqrt(N), and remember to insert the 2 in the list). While you walk through the list of primes up to 2^25, you can calculate how many numbers up to 2^50 it takes out as not squarefree, but you need to calculate how many doubles you had. This can be done by accumulation: 4 takes out 1/4 of the numbers, keep 1/4 in mind. 9 takes out 1/9 of the numbers, but 1/4 of ...
... guess ... You use a polynomial which generates all the squarefree positive integers (greater than 1) -- something along the lines of... that the polynomial in Robert Israel's post generates all non-squarefree positive integers, so it doesn't help. It ... suffice to find an integer polynomial whose (full) range is all squarefree positive integers greater than 1. But I don't...
...-0400, quasi <quasi@null.set> wrote: It _would_ suffice to find an integer polynomial whose (full) range is all squarefree positive integers greater than 1. But I don't see how to do that. My conjecture is ... add that to the list of unresolved problems? You've generated all positive integer non-squares. Can you generate all squarefree positive integers greater than 1? quasi
... 2007 01:39:48 -0400, quasi <quasi@null.set> wrote: On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:24:02 -0700, adler.math@gmail.com wrote: You use a polynomial which generates all the squarefree positive integers (greater than 1) -- something along the lines of the polynomial in Robert Israel's post, then just multiply by the square of a new variable. Is that the trick? ...
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:24:02 -0700, adler.math@gmail.com wrote: You use a polynomial which generates all the squarefree positive integers (greater than 1) -- something along the lines of the polynomial in Robert Israel's post, then just multiply by the square of a new variable. Is that the trick? quasi No, it is rather more simple minded than that. I do ...
... guess ... You use a polynomial which generates all the squarefree positive integers (greater than 1) -- something along the lines of... that the polynomial in Robert Israel's post generates all non-squarefree positive integers, so it doesn't help. It _would_ suffice to find an integer polynomial whose (full) range is all squarefree positive integers greater than 1. But I don't see how...
... not square. The proof is short, an explicit construction. The "Matijasevic" theorem plays no part. Let's see it. Let me guess ... You use a polynomial which generates all the squarefree positive integers (greater than 1) -- something along the lines of the polynomial in Robert Israel's post, then just multiply by the square of a new variable. Is that the trick? quasi
... questa pagina web di consigli per una navigazione sicura con Firefox (applicabili spesso in generale). Siccome è un argomento che viene spesso richiesto, lo segnalo (purtroppo è in inglese): http://www.squarefree.com/securitytips/users.html La fonte è attendibile, si tratta di uno dei responsabili per la sicurezza di Mozilla. Accanto a cose note e già dette, ci sono informazioni meno ...
