Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragan conjecture

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dragan conjecture

Did some research, nothing come up under "Dragon conjecture", taking the quotes off gets a few more, but nothing looking like this. Also adding "prime" doesn't get any further. Probably NN if it exists. I'd say delete unless some good references are given. Fallsend 23:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The conjecture seems interesting, but I can't find any references to Dragan. Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  Clarification. Strongly disagree with NN, at least in regard to (a). Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  Clarification again. The new conjecture is clearly false, unless is always prime, for . Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It does not seem to be much of a conjecture. It says "Given an integer n" and does not hold for 0. If a conjecture by this name really exists, an article that states it properly could be written. --Tabor 05:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for same reason as Tabor. It doesn't hold for 1 either, since 2 is not between 1 and 2. Or for -1. Rule 2 doesn't hold for any negative integers, in fact. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Related to the Bertrand-Chebychev theorem ("Chebychev said it and I'll say it again, There's always a prime between n and 2n!"); part A will probably fall over with large n. Oh, and no references; the author is from Romania. Might this be original research by the author? --Zetawoof 09:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, unless references are given. I can't find a Valeriu Dragan on MathSciNet. Google does not help either. Part (b) is easy to prove (once correctly formulated) since there are n − 1 numbers between n² and n² + n and half of them are even, thus not prime. Part (a) is more interesting. If the Riemann hypothesis is true, then there is a prime between n² and n² + n^1+ε for every ε > 0 for sufficiently large n [1]. Baker, Harman and Pintz proved that there is a prime between n² and n² + n^1.05 for sufficiently large n [2]. Finally, Bertrand's postulate says that an unsolved conjecture states that there is always a prime between n² and (n+1)² = n² + 2n + 1. I find it hard to imagine that a professional mathematician would group two conjectures of such varying difficulty together. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not sensible. Charles Matthews 21:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like original research. Can't find a trace of Valeriu Dragan, although Vasile Dragan has been very productive :-) --C S 04:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Google immediately turns up a Valeriu Dragan who is an architect and a junior lecturer at "Ion Mincu" University of Architecture and Urbanism. Michael Hardy 22:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.