mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Twin Prime Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-05-23, 11:23   #1
Paulie
 
Paulie's Avatar
 
Aug 2002

DF16 Posts
Default Article: First proof that infinitely many prime numbers come in pairs

Quote:
It’s a result only a mathematician could love. Researchers hoping to get ‘2’ as the answer for a long-sought proof involving pairs of prime numbers are celebrating the fact that a mathematician has wrestled the value down from infinity to 70 million.
http://www.nature.com/news/first-pro...-pairs-1.12989

And a related blog: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/...en_primes.html
Paulie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-23, 18:09   #2
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

2×3×5×79 Posts
Default new theorem proven

well, http://www.slate.com/articles/health...e_numbers.html

Can't say I have enough knowledge to refute or approve the proof, but it might be of some interest.

Code:
What about the gaps between consecutive primes? You might think that, because prime numbers get 
rarer and rarer as numbers get bigger, that they also get farther and farther apart. On average, 
that’s indeed the case. But what Yitang Zhang just proved is that there are infinitely many pairs of 
primes that differ by at most 70,000,000. In other words, that the gap between one prime and 
the next is bounded by 70,000,000 infinitely often—thus, the “bounded gaps” conjecture.
And, a first look at the paper
http://blogs.ethz.ch/kowalski/2013/0...etween-primes/

Last fiddled with by firejuggler on 2013-05-23 at 18:19
firejuggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-17, 01:34   #3
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

2·1,877 Posts
Default

It's been just over a month since Zhang's paper "Bounded gaps between primes." Since then, the Polymath8 page shows that the bounded gap may have reduced from 70,000,000 to less than 61,000.
http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/...between_primes
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-21, 16:38   #4
MattcAnderson
 
MattcAnderson's Avatar
 
"Matthew Anderson"
Dec 2010
Oregon, USA

11248 Posts
Default

It looks like the bound has been reduced to 12,042. So there are an infinite number of prime pairs a distance of 12,042 or less apart. Exciting!
MattcAnderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-21, 17:11   #5
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

2·3·5·79 Posts
Default

Impressive, indeed, and in only 5 week. Now it might become difficult to improve he bound.
firejuggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-21, 23:35   #6
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

11·157 Posts
Default

I thought 70 million was pretty exciting but that seems to be old news.

I should note for those who may be misinterpreting this proof: It does NOT say that there is a prime after 70 million or twelve thousand or whatever numbers. What it is saying is that there are infinitely many primes with at most X in between them. It's actually a pretty weak statement.

The proof does NOT guarantee every prime has a close neighbour. If there is only a single prime number in between 10100,000,000 and 101,000,000,000 (this is a gap of basically 101,000,000,000 which is a LOT bigger than even 107) the proof still holds. It is just saying that there is ALWAYS a next set of sibling primes.
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-22, 03:12   #7
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

5×11×157 Posts
Default

Channeling my inner RDS, what you say is a bit o gibberish.. The "statement" is quite strong, and it is a step in proving twin primes conjecture. The other two fragments about what the result "does not say" are "more than a bit" of gibberish, first because we already know that the gap between the primes can be mad made arbitrarily large, and the second because we also already know that there is always a prime between n and 2n for any n. (of course, we understand that you used those powers of ten in a figurative sense, but still..... there is a math forum here...)

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2013-06-22 at 03:15 Reason: /s/mad/made :smile: hehe, that was unintentional, I swear!
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-22, 05:07   #8
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

172710 Posts
Default

Alright. I'll give you that one. It's fairly strong in what it has set out to do but there is quite little use outside the twin primes conjecture.

All I meant to say was that it doesn't really affect the actual search for primes.

I overlooked the fact that there is a prime between n and 2n. The fact still remains that, as you said, the gap between primes is absolutely unbounded. I just wanted to point out, before anyone made the mistake, that the 12,042 or whatever thing does not in any way state that there MUST be a prime within 12,042 of another prime.
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-22, 05:39   #9
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

127628 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMawn View Post
I just wanted to point out, before anyone made the mistake, that the 12,042 or whatever thing does not in any way state that there MUST be a prime within 12,042 of another prime.
I don't see where anyone suggested such a thing. I think we here all knew what the announcement meant.
retina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-22, 05:44   #10
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

863510 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMawn View Post
I just wanted to point out, before anyone made the mistake, that the 12,042 or whatever thing does not in any way state that there MUST be a prime within 12,042 of another prime.
That is indeed very true. To our disappointment, otherwise it should be very easy for us to find primes, and get the EFF's money... , we would only have to test about 12k consecutive numbers of 100M digits, which would be most of them eliminated by as simple Erathostenes sieve, that's life...

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2013-06-22 at 05:45
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-22, 16:17   #11
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

288910 Posts
Default

Anyone with the knowledge to understand these papers think there will ever be proven a finite bound to consecutive primes?

It does not seem possible if the number of primes below n follows roughly n/ln n which means the average gap increases, but these proofs with infinite pairs of primes below 70,000,000 or even lower also seem counter intuitive.

Last fiddled with by ATH on 2013-06-22 at 16:23
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prime numbers test primality - with proof written in invisible ink Godzilla Miscellaneous Math 40 2018-10-17 00:11
Higher order Wierferich prime pairs carpetpool Miscellaneous Math 2 2018-04-15 00:28
Counting Goldbach Prime Pairs Up To... Steve One Miscellaneous Math 8 2018-03-06 19:20
Proof Claimed for Deep Connection between Prime Numbers Jeff Gilchrist Math 1 2012-09-11 14:42
decimal-binary prime pairs ixfd64 Math 2 2003-10-16 13:40

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:47.

Mon Aug 10 22:47:22 UTC 2020 up 24 days, 18:34, 2 users, load averages: 2.92, 2.94, 2.76

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.