tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Discussion of Firoozbakht conjecture) Sun, 04 Nov 2018 13:47:48 -0800 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.9 & Feed Publisher Will Jagy comments on "Discussion of Firoozbakht conjecture" (18752) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1326/discussion-of-firoozbakht-conjecture/?Focus=18752#Comment_18752 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1326/discussion-of-firoozbakht-conjecture/?Focus=18752#Comment_18752 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:26:26 -0700 Will Jagy
So I think the original question was a bit wrongheaded in the first place. Also voted to close. ]]> Angelo comments on "Discussion of Firoozbakht conjecture" (18751) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1326/discussion-of-firoozbakht-conjecture/?Focus=18751#Comment_18751 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1326/discussion-of-firoozbakht-conjecture/?Focus=18751#Comment_18751 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:24:20 -0700 Angelo Vladimir Dotsenko comments on "Discussion of Firoozbakht conjecture" (18750) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1326/discussion-of-firoozbakht-conjecture/?Focus=18750#Comment_18750 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1326/discussion-of-firoozbakht-conjecture/?Focus=18750#Comment_18750 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:15:14 -0700 Vladimir Dotsenko
Let me just repeat the comment I left there: Given the pointless discussion user 'humble' continues posting more and more comments as new answers, I vote to close as "no longer relevant".

(It keeps bumping the question on the top without any good reason, really. I think the diagnosis of quid and Ben Green is very accurate, and in any case the answer to the original question given by quid is surely sufficient.) ]]>