I was inspired by this little problem, which I got wrong because I was missing a tiny term in the sum.

So, I pose this question:

Approximate the number of semiprimes less than \(e^{100}\).

My approximation is

\[8.09350340 \ldots \times 10^{41}\]

It's really messy and pretty tedious but involves simple calculus and algebra. The estimate is the upper bound of a lower bound.

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestThanks for the mention. :D

Log in to reply

@Jake Lai Sorry for the mistake. I have edited that problem. I could not reply there I think there is some bug. :)

Log in to reply

By "upper bound of a lower bound", do you mean the "greatest lower bound"?

Log in to reply

No, because I don't know if it is the greatest lower bound. All I know is that the lower bound is greater than it's "supposed" to be. This is because I ignored a \(\ln \ln x\) term in an integral I was dealing with.

Log in to reply

Cheers for the inspiration, @Finn Hulse. Hope you find this fun.

Log in to reply