Somehow these last corrections have not appeared, perhaps due to an upload problem?

*[Oops, sorry about that – it should be OK now – T]*

Dear Terry, sorry for the trouble or if I am wrong, but:

1. We also need to change to in the second display before (71) and the line that precedes it.

2. In the fourth display below (72), the condition should be .

3. In the third display below (77), should be .

*[Corrected, thanks – T.]*

1. In (66) and subsequent displays, I would put into parentheses.

2. In the proof of Proposition 12 you remark that (59) implies . I think (59) only implies , so the subsequent bound for needs an extra factor of .

3. In the three display following (71), the condition is missing, and should be .

4. In the second display below (71), a factor is missing on the right hand side.

5. In the third display below (72), the term is missing. Also, for the sake of the reader, it would be better to use the variables instead of in this definition.

6. In the fourth display below (72), the condition is missing.

7. In (74) and in the third display below (77), should be .

8. For the sake of the reader I would add more detail regarding the choice of below (77). There is a constant such that exceeds . If , then there is a divisor such that , and any such divisor is admissible by . Otherwise , hence is admissible by .

*[Corrected, thanks – T.]*

1. In the discussion below Proposition 12, you say that (62) with the appropriate parameters follows from (17). My calculation tells me that instead of (17) we need the slightly stronger bound . More precisely, we want

,

,

,

.

Am I missing something?

2. “values coprime to ” should be “values coprime to “.

3. In (63) and in the display before (64), should be .

*[Corrected, thanks. Increasing to causes some changes in the final calculations, but fortunately only for non-dominant inequalities, and the final constraint on remains unchanged. -T.]*

1. In the third display below Proposition 12, we have the constraint . Why is it not as dictated by from the previous display?

2. In the first display below Proposition 12, should be .

3. In the second and third display below Proposition 12, should be .

4. In the display following (63), should be .

*[Corrected, thanks. The additional constraint does indeed need to be placed on but this is harmless as one simply applies Proposition 12 with a suitably truncated version of . -T]*

*[Corrected, thanks – T.]*

*[Corrected, thanks – T.]*

In the Wiki page (http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Distribution_of_primes_in_smooth_moduli) the condition has been misprinted as .

*[Fixed, thanks – T.]*

OK, I guess you explain it right below (49), that “” is really not such, but a different thing that is really only .

]]>