tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Discussion of Firoozbakht conjecture)Thu, 18 Jul 2019 05:01:00 -0700
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_18752Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:26:26 -0700Will 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_18751Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:24:20 -0700AngeloVladimir 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_18750Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:15:14 -0700Vladimir 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.) ]]>