| Register
\(\newcommand{\Cat}{{\rm Cat}} \) \(\newcommand{\A}{\mathcal A} \) \(\newcommand{\freestar}{ \framebox[7pt]{$\star$} }\)

6. Making the method more rigorous


    1. Add remark

      Problem 6.1.

      [S. Bettin] Can one formulate a conjecture (e.g. Kloosterman sum estimates) that lead to the calculations of Conrey and Keating in a rigorous way? We need a better understanding (even mechanically) of these calculations.
        1. Remark. For this problem, it may be easier to start with low moments first.


            • Add remark

              Problem 6.2.

              [H. Iwaniec] Is there some version of MoĢˆbius randomness that would lead to similar calculations? And vice versa, can one go back to primes e.g. from analogs for ratios conjectures?


                • Add remark

                  Problem 6.3.

                  [B. Rodgers] Is there a random model on the primes that leads to the Type II calculations of Bogomolny and Keating (e.g. use Hardy-Littlewood for the probability that both $n$ and $n+h$ are prime)?


                    • Add remark

                      Problem 6.4.

                      [A. Harper] Can we make the calculations uniform in $k$?


                        • Add remark

                          Problem 6.5.

                          [H. Iwaniec] Can one formulate a weighted version of moments with potentially simpler main terms?

                              Cite this as: AimPL: Moments of zeta and correlations of divisor sums, available at http://aimpl.org/zetamoments.