The proposed 'chellenge' is retired because it has been badly impostated!...

I beg your pardon for the time You have wasted!...

Kind regards

Printable View

- November 12th 2009, 12:25 AMchisigmaAbout Euler's constant (4)...
The proposed 'chellenge' is retired because it has been badly impostated!...

I beg your pardon for the time You have wasted!...

Kind regards

- November 12th 2009, 06:58 AMDrexel28
- November 13th 2009, 01:57 AMchisigma
In order to avoid misunderstanding a preliminary question must be answered...

In the following previous thread...

http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/number-theory/112730-question-about-eulers-phi-function.html

... starting from the basic explicit formula for ...

(1)

... first we derived ...

(2)

... and from which we demonstrated that...

(3)

Now from (3) I realize that is...

(4)

The question: is all that correct?...

Kind regards

- November 14th 2009, 09:38 PMchisigma

In order to avoid any possible confusion I recast the previous question in more general terms...

The possibilities that the expression does have any sense are two...

a) given a sequence at it is asociated one and only one and we are interested to the . In this case we need to have an acceptable definition of ...

b) given a sequence it is said to have a 'lower bound' if it doesn't exist any for which is and , given a , it exist at least one , for which is . In this case however the expression is a nonsense...

The question : which is true?... a) or b)?... or something else?...

Kind regards

- November 16th 2009, 07:37 AMDrexel28