My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
October 13th, 2012, 02:46 PM   #1
Newbie
 
Joined: Oct 2012

Posts: 22
Thanks: 0

My new formula for pi(x)

pi(x) is the count of primers less that x

Here is my new formula.



It gives very precise results
I proved it by evidance in algebrial way.

ex.
pi(1000)





nsrmsm is offline  
 
October 13th, 2012, 05:12 PM   #2
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Re: My new formula for pi(x)

You seem to mean

which has an atrocious amount of cancellation and a consequently huge error term. Can you even prove that the ratio of this to pi(n) is 1? (It seems to be true...)
CRGreathouse is offline  
October 13th, 2012, 05:30 PM   #3
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Re: My new formula for pi(x)

The pi(sqrt(n)) part doesn't seem to help, either. Look at 500,000: your formula is too high by 1136.8..., but it would 'only' be off by 1010.8... if you dropped that term.

Similarly at 10^9 it worsens the error from 3,319,288.3... to 3,322,689.3....
CRGreathouse is offline  
October 13th, 2012, 11:13 PM   #4
Newbie
 
Joined: Oct 2012

Posts: 22
Thanks: 0

Re: My new formula for pi(x)

thank you for your helpful feedback.

I will applead a word file which contains the proof

so wiat for me

your feedback is very important to me.
nsrmsm is offline  
October 14th, 2012, 09:03 AM   #5
Newbie
 
Joined: Oct 2012

Posts: 22
Thanks: 0

Re: My new formula for pi(x)

this is a pdf file contains the proof
I change it from word
pdf is better than word in reading, I think so.


download the file from this link

http://depositfiles.com/files/awg3hvlri

size 284 kb

it is a bit more than attachment maximum allowed size which is 250 Kb

zip file does not help still more than 250 kb
nsrmsm is offline  
October 14th, 2012, 12:27 PM   #6
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Re: My new formula for pi(x)

Your result is incorrect, as shown in your first post: equality does not hold. It may be that the two are approximately equal, but you have not proved this.
CRGreathouse is offline  
October 15th, 2012, 12:21 AM   #7
Newbie
 
Joined: Oct 2012

Posts: 22
Thanks: 0

Re: My new formula for pi(x)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
Your result is incorrect, as shown in your first post: equality does not hold. It may be that the two are approximately equal, but you have not proved this.
incorrect means no equality and not approximately equal.

my proof does not mean that the result will be exact

because (for example) when I remove multiples of 5 as 1/5 from the remain it does not exactly 1/5 from it.

the primers will become more and more in the remains while removing the multiples of primers less than sequare root of (n)

and this is what makes the approximation become far from pi(n).

It seems to me I have to consider the method again..

thank you CRGreathouse you gave me very important notes.
nsrmsm is offline  
October 15th, 2012, 05:36 AM   #8
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Re: My new formula for pi(x)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsrmsm
incorrect means no equality and not approximately equal.
No, that's not what it means. You wrote an = sign, and it's not an equality.

It may be an approximate equality, but your 'proof' does not show that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsrmsm
the primers will become more and more in the remains while removing the multiples of primers less than sequare root of (n)

and this is what makes the approximation become far from pi(n).
If you can show that it must stay close to pi(x) that would be interesting.

I see an error of 2,666,913,530,087 at 10^15; that's much further than the error of the logarithmic integral at the same point (1,052,61.
CRGreathouse is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
formula, pix



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Formula Help NuNu_dagobah Computer Science 4 January 8th, 2013 07:31 AM
why we use this formula r-soy Physics 3 December 23rd, 2010 08:54 PM
Formula to always get 28 djx18 Algebra 1 September 20th, 2009 05:25 PM
De Moivre's formula and Newton's binomial formula agro Probability and Statistics 3 August 27th, 2009 06:17 AM
Formula Help NuNu_dagobah Abstract Algebra 0 December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM





Copyright © 2018 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.