View Single Post
 2019-06-09, 17:19 #8 robert44444uk     Jun 2003 Oxford, UK 7×271 Posts Here are some raw numbers for gaps following twin primes in the integer ranges from 5 to n, where n is the first column in the table. The merit of each gap, given by g(p')/ln(p') where p' is the larger member of a twin prime and g(p') is the gap that follows p' to the next prime is calculated for each gap. The second column provides the merit of the median gap in an array of all twin primes in the 5 to n range, ordered by the merit of the gaps the third column provides the sum of the merits for all gaps following all twin pairs in the 5 to n range divided by the number of gaps in the range 5 to n - i.e. the average merit The median result looks odd to me, especially the median at 1e7 compared to 1e8. Maybe its my program! Code: n median average 1e4 1.130409 1.174763 1e5 0.960076 1.140654 1e6 0.879785 1.12384 1e7 0.800977 1.10489 1e8 0.875686 1.091765 1e9 0.861240 1.084227 This is the same set of calculations for the primes up to 1e8: Code: n median average 1e4 0.790794 1.015308 1e5 0.778257 1.004082 1e6 0.780593 1.001669 1e7 0.765885 1.000514 1e8 0.744425 1.000131 And the percentage uptick for each set: Code: n median average 1e4 42.95% 15.71% 1e5 23.36% 13.60% 1e6 12.71% 12.20% 1e7 4.58% 10.43% 1e8 17.63% 9.16% These are huge upticks! I was thinking 1%. For the gaps preceding the twins, the results closely mirror the results for the gaps following the twins even down to the 1e7 median anomaly - this looks exceedingly odd Code: n median average 1e4 1.095597 1.16574 1e5 0.965776 1.161442 1e6 0.878152 1.113329 1e7 0.802137 1.10796 1e8 0.876182 1.092035 Last fiddled with by robert44444uk on 2019-06-09 at 18:01