Ethereal sieve and other methods for the Goldbach conjecture Год выпуска: 2013Автор: Fu-Gao SongИздательство: LAP Lambert Academic PublishingСтраниц: 68ISBN: 9783659477584Описание There are at least four methods with which to prove the Goldbach conjecture, which contain the “ethereal sieve method”, the “comparative sieve method”, the “sifting function partition by integer sorts” and the “sifting function partition by intervals”; these are all based on existing results about the research of Goldbach problem. By means of these methods, the number of primes which are propitious to the Goldbach problem can be calculated from existing results, an accurate first order approximation of Goldbach conjecture can therefore be obtained, and the problem of twin primes can also be solved.
Похожие книги
Bob Johansen and Institute for the Future. Get There Early: Sensing the Future to Compete in the Present. – М.: , 2012. – 408 с. K. Alec Chrystal, Rupert Pennant-Rea, British Association for the Advancement of Science Section F. Public Choice Analysis of Economic Policy (British Association for the Advancement of Science Books). – М.: , 0. – 0 с. M. Fogiel, Staff of Rea, Research and Education Association, Research, The Staff of Education Association. Microeconomics Super Review. – М.: , 0. – 0 с. United Nations. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Eco-efficiency: A Practical Path to Sustainable Development, a Reference for Eco-efficiency Partnership in North-east Asia (Economic and Social Commision for Asia and the Pacific). – М.: , 2008. – 80 с. United Nations. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific: Container Transportation by Railways (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific). – М.: , 2008. – 126 с. CAPT(Center for the Advancement of Process Tech)l. Process Quality. – М.: , 2010. – 288 с. Edited by Fatemeh Ebtehaj, Bridget Lindley and Martin Richards for the Cambridge Socio-Legal Group. Kinship Matters. – М.: , 2011. – 326 с. Edited by Jack Beatson and Eltjo Schrage, with the collaboration of Mindy Chen-Wishart, Martin Hogg. Cases, Materials and Texts on Unjustified Enrichment. – М.: , 2011. – 640 с. Edited by Dagmar Schiek, Lisa Waddington and Mark Bell (with the collaboration of Tufyal Choudhury. Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law. – М.: , 2011. – 1118 с. European Commission European Commission and Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Developmen. Genetic Resources in Agriculture. – М.: Dictus Publishing, 2013. – 92 с. European Commission European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Director. Environment and Health Funded by the Seventh Framework Programme. – М.: Dictus Publishing, 2013. – 524 с. European Commission European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Director. EU Research for the Environment 2007-2013. – М.: Dictus Publishing, 2013. – 52 с. European Commission European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Director. Overall Uncertainty Analysis. – М.: Dictus Publishing, 2013. – 248 с. European Commission European Commission and Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Developmen. Rural Development in the European Union. – М.: Dictus Publishing, 2013. – 420 с. European Commission European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Director. Understanding and Mastering Coal Fired Ashes Geopolymerisation Process. – М.: Dictus Publishing, 2013. – 120 с. European Commission European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Director. Most Appropriate Treatments. – М.: Dictus Publishing, 2013. – 124 с. European Commission European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Director. Natural Fire Safety Concept. – М.: Dictus Publishing, 2011. – 208 с. Образцы работ
Задайте свой вопрос по вашей теме
Контакты
Поделиться
Мы в социальных сетях
Реклама
Отзывы
Алексей Здравствуйте, нам выставили оценки за курсовые за обе курсовые нам поставили 4 при защите, ей видимо в курсовой просто не понравилось негативное отношение к оценщикам, поэтому она и поставила такие оценки, а в переделанной работе это все было убрано и она поставила более высокие оценки, а по банковскому делу поставили 5. Так что все хорошо. Спасибо большое!
