2018-11-04T13:47:48-08:00 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/ Lussumo Vanilla & Feed Publisher http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1326/discussion-of-firoozbakht-conjecture/?Focus=18752#Comment_18752 2012-03-15T11:26:26-07:00 2018-11-04T13:47:48-08:00 Will Jagy http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/208/

Right. Quid's answer suffices. In fact, my understanding was that numerical evidence supported Granville's constant coefficient fairly well, and tends to discredit a coefficient of 1. Not sure where ...

So I think the original question was a bit wrongheaded in the first place. Also voted to close.]]> http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1326/discussion-of-firoozbakht-conjecture/?Focus=18751#Comment_18751 2012-03-15T11:24:20-07:00 2018-11-04T13:47:48-08:00 Angelo http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/483/

I also voted to close.

http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1326/discussion-of-firoozbakht-conjecture/?Focus=18750#Comment_18750 2012-03-15T11:15:14-07:00 2018-11-04T13:47:48-08:00 Vladimir Dotsenko http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/676/

The question I am referring to is http://mathoverflow.net/questions/90327/any-progress-on-the-firoozbakht-conjectureLet me just repeat the comment I left there: Given the pointless discussion user ...

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.)]]>