08/17/2010, 10:33 PM
didnt read my posts yesterday ?
i probably proved 2 of your statements with basicly the same method.
i dont know where 2e/(k + ln(k)/(3 - 1/k)) is coming from btw and i dont see it explained.
it seems robert didnt show that e-r_k doesnt converge at exp speed and hence he merely did a taylor series recursion , though i admit so did i finally.
furthermore sum 1/(k*log^3(k)) converges so the proof certainly needs to be made more rigorous.
i used the koenigs analogue to prevent wild solutions to the taylor series recursion , however a strong proof or construction of a solution to the taylor series recursion to prevent e.g. r_k ~~ 1/(k*log^3(k)). is needed.
robert merely gave a recursion , i did a bit more.
but perhaps not enough. im thinking about improving what i wrote yesterday.
maybe replace koenigs analogue with a better formula analogue.
and partially replacing taylor ( after r_3 term ) with something better.
and robert is not a full prof i believe.
dont get me wrong , i do not wish to belittle robert , i respect him and supported him in the past.
but i dont like you skipping my reply ... and ignoring my other potential proof.
forgive my anger , but i am a man of honor.
maybe you meant to reply at my posts later ...
do me a favor to make up for it and read my other potential proof in ' tiny limit curiosity '.
regards
tommy1729
i probably proved 2 of your statements with basicly the same method.
i dont know where 2e/(k + ln(k)/(3 - 1/k)) is coming from btw and i dont see it explained.
it seems robert didnt show that e-r_k doesnt converge at exp speed and hence he merely did a taylor series recursion , though i admit so did i finally.
furthermore sum 1/(k*log^3(k)) converges so the proof certainly needs to be made more rigorous.
i used the koenigs analogue to prevent wild solutions to the taylor series recursion , however a strong proof or construction of a solution to the taylor series recursion to prevent e.g. r_k ~~ 1/(k*log^3(k)). is needed.
robert merely gave a recursion , i did a bit more.
but perhaps not enough. im thinking about improving what i wrote yesterday.
maybe replace koenigs analogue with a better formula analogue.
and partially replacing taylor ( after r_3 term ) with something better.
and robert is not a full prof i believe.
dont get me wrong , i do not wish to belittle robert , i respect him and supported him in the past.
but i dont like you skipping my reply ... and ignoring my other potential proof.
forgive my anger , but i am a man of honor.
maybe you meant to reply at my posts later ...
do me a favor to make up for it and read my other potential proof in ' tiny limit curiosity '.
regards
tommy1729