mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Math > Number Theory Discussion Group

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-10-22, 14:07   #1
R2357
 
"Ruben"
Oct 2020
Nederland

2·19 Posts
Question 2nd Hardy-Littlewood conjecture

Hello,

I've looked at the way primes behave in sequences which have a primorial length and, as I mentionned a few weeks ago, I came across the 2nd Hardy-Littlewood conjecture, which was expained to me as being incompatible with the first Hardy-Littlewood conjecture.

What I don't understand is why do we believe that it's the first one which is right, personnaly, I believe it's the second, here's why I think so :

The second Hardy-Littlewood conjecture states that with x>1, pi(x)>=pi(x+y)-pi(y).
That seems to me as very probable! Already, the first sequence of 30 contains 10 primes, none of the others will contain more than 7.

Why would this conjecture seem to be false?
R2357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-22, 14:32   #2
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

2×2,969 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R2357 View Post
The second Hardy-Littlewood conjecture states that with x>1, pi(x)>=pi(x+y)-pi(y).
That seems to me as very probable! Already, the first sequence of 30 contains 10 primes, none of the others will contain more than 7.
That case is certain: you can't fit that many primes into a run of 30 except at the beginning. But there are higher cases where the first conjecture says there is a really tight configuration, so tight that you could fit in even more primes than at the beginning. These configurations are known -- the only question is whether there are examples of them appearing 'in the wild', as it were. But I certainly expect that they do appear, in fact infinitely often. The trouble is that you'd expect them to be fairly sparse and thus hard to find, and so it's not surprising we haven't found any so far.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-22, 15:34   #3
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

2×1,901 Posts
Default

K-TUPLE Permissible Patterns
Quote:
This conjecture fails if the k-tuple conjecture is true with a value of y = 3159.
An admissible k-tuple of 447 primes can be created in an interval of 3159 integers,
while π(3159) = 446.

Exhaustive searching has verified the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture is true for intervals up to 2529.
Exhaustive searching has identified all maximum density k-tuple patterns in intervals of 3 to 2331.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-22, 15:54   #4
bsquared
 
bsquared's Avatar
 
"Ben"
Feb 2007

13×257 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
Maybe I'm not understanding something... how can the search be exhaustive if x is unbounded?
bsquared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-22, 16:14   #5
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

22×5×239 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsquared View Post
Maybe I'm not understanding something... how can the search be exhaustive if x is unbounded?
They're searching for permissible patterns, not actual occurrences of any pattern.
axn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-22, 16:16   #6
bsquared
 
bsquared's Avatar
 
"Ben"
Feb 2007

13×257 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
They're searching for permissible patterns, not actual occurrences of any pattern.
Ah, ok thanks.
bsquared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-22, 16:35   #7
R2357
 
"Ruben"
Oct 2020
Nederland

3810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
That case is certain: you can't fit that many primes into a run of 30 except at the beginning. But there are higher cases where the first conjecture says there is a really tight configuration, so tight that you could fit in even more primes than at the beginning. These configurations are known -- the only question is whether there are examples of them appearing 'in the wild', as it were. But I certainly expect that they do appear, in fact infinitely often. The trouble is that you'd expect them to be fairly sparse and thus hard to find, and so it's not surprising we haven't found any so far.
But the region where they are searching is over 10^174, so, if we want to find within a sequence of 3159, 447 prime numbers, that means that the interval, this high, must contain even less composite numbers than in the first 3159, this seems really unlikely.
R2357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-22, 17:06   #8
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

173216 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R2357 View Post
But the region where they are searching is over 10^174, so, if we want to find within a sequence of 3159, 447 prime numbers, that means that the interval, this high, must contain even less composite numbers than in the first 3159, this seems really unlikely.
It's like looking for twin primes: sure, if you look really high they're rare, but no one doubts that there are plenty of them, even though they're really close together.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-22, 19:22   #9
mart_r
 
mart_r's Avatar
 
Dec 2008
you know...around...

25·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R2357 View Post
What I don't understand is why do we believe that it's the first one which is right, personnaly, I believe it's the second, here's why I think so :

The second Hardy-Littlewood conjecture states that with x>1, pi(x)>=pi(x+y)-pi(y).
That seems to me as very probable! Already, the first sequence of 30 contains 10 primes, none of the others will contain more than 7.
That's merely the fallacy by looking at small numbers only. You probably have seen the calculations that the first example is expected in the vicinity of 101198. With current methods, there's really no hope of ever actually finding a 447-tuplet (or any larger tuplet where there are more primes in an interval than at the beginning of the number line). But every empirical study and all data available so far is in favor of Hardy-Littlewoods first conjecture, so one can assume that these super-dense patterns do exist. And, for any fixed p, one can calculate patterns of these 447-tuplets without a prime factor < p. (In fact, I have done so a few years ago, with p > 1327.)

For comparison: Five years ago, the first large 21-tuplet was found. We don't yet know about a 24-tuplet in the range of p+[0...100], but I hope that I live long enough to witness the discovery of a 24-tuplet.

But I mainly wanted to point out a similar case in prime number theory: if you look at the function Li(x)-pi(x) (Li(x) being the logarithmic integral), even for the largest values of x for which the exact value of pi(x) is known, hardly anyone would expect that it ever produces negative numbers. Yet it is known that Li(x) < pi(x) for some values around x=1.4*10316, and in fact there are infinitely many such instances where Li(x) < pi(x).

Last fiddled with by mart_r on 2020-10-22 at 19:29 Reason: "the exact value of"
mart_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-23, 00:26   #10
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

73328 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mart_r View Post
But I mainly wanted to point out a similar case in prime number theory: if you look at the function Li(x)-pi(x) (Li(x) being the logarithmic integral), even for the largest values of x for which the exact value of pi(x) is known, hardly anyone would expect that it ever produces negative numbers. Yet it is known that Li(x) < pi(x) for some values around x=1.4*10316, and in fact there are infinitely many such instances where Li(x) < pi(x).
Once upon a time, long long ago, I posted a link to a paper discussing this, Prime Number Races.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-23, 08:11   #11
R2357
 
"Ruben"
Oct 2020
Nederland

2·19 Posts
rolleyes Sequence of 3159 numbers containing 447 primes

Anyway, if there indeed is such a sequence, then the first or the occurrence will have been reached by 32 589 158 477 190 044 730, thus way below the lower band of 10^174.
R2357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can we prove Beal conjecture assuming ABC conjecture? didgogns Miscellaneous Math 1 2020-08-05 06:51
I think I have a conjecture MathDoggy Miscellaneous Math 11 2019-04-17 07:05
This conjecture may be useful. reddwarf2956 Prime Gap Searches 2 2016-03-01 22:41
The constant in Hardy-Littlewood's Conjecture F CRGreathouse Math 4 2010-07-06 17:47
Incompatible Hardy-Littlewood conjectures: a DC project? GP2 Math 2 2003-09-14 04:36

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:15.

Fri Nov 27 12:15:49 UTC 2020 up 78 days, 9:26, 4 users, load averages: 1.44, 1.30, 1.24

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.