Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Assesses coefficient stability and out-of-sample validation for prime gap predictions, suggesting strong reliability.
Short companion to "An empirical subleading correction to Wolf's formula for consecutive prime gaps" (Sestak 2026, v1, Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.19796305). The v1 paper proposed a two-parameter, no-intercept correction R(g, N) ≈ a·√ω(g) − b·log log N to Wolf's 1998 heuristic, fitted on n = 140 points covering N ∈ [10^5, 10^13] under the primary filter ρ = g·C_g/ln N ∈ [0.05, 1.10]. This companion extends the dataset to N ≤ 3·10^14 (28 values of N, n = 169) and reports: (i) out-of-sample validation — the v1 fit, frozen at (a, b) = (0.855, −0.202), predicts the 29 new (g, N) points with weighted R² = 0.986; (ii) coefficient stability — refit on n = 169 gives (0.836, −0.195), inside the pre-extension block-bootstrap 95% intervals, and the intercept remains statistically unjustified (LR p = 0.18, ΔBIC = −3.30); (iii) first ω(g) = 3 datapoint at g ≠ 30 — g = 42 enters the relaxed filter at N = 3·10^14, the first within-stratum variation in g and C_g at ω = 3. The qualitative reading of v1 is unchanged. 5 pages, 1 figure. Code and data: github.com/dkrse/math-02-wolf. In memoriam Marek Wolf (1949–2026).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kristian Sestak (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: