4 ms·
Are you saying that Maynard independently tackled P(2) or that he independently came up with a better sieve? My take from reading the article is the latter.
by fspeech 13y ago
Are you saying that Maynard independently tackled P(2) or that he independently came up with a better sieve? My take from reading the article is the latter.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- icambron 13y agoI guess I'm saying the latter too. Can you explain the former?
- fspeech 13y agoIt is my understanding from reading Maynard's preprint that he claims independence from Terrence Tao and the Polymath8 project. He doesn't claim independence from Zhang and neither should he, even if he uses a different approach. His result may well turn out to be important or more important but Zhang's result is clearly earlier and well-known. My differentiation is that number theorists are looking for better sieves all the time. Zhang's work was a breakthrough in bringing the prime gap from infinity to a finite number. It is not surprising that better sieves could bring the gap a lot closer.