20130523, 11:23  #1  
Aug 2002
DF_{16} Posts 
Article: First proof that infinitely many prime numbers come in pairs
Quote:
And a related blog: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/...en_primes.html 

20130523, 18:09  #2 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
2×3×5×79 Posts 
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. http://blogs.ethz.ch/kowalski/2013/0...etweenprimes/ Last fiddled with by firejuggler on 20130523 at 18:19 
20130617, 01:34  #3 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002
2·1,877 Posts 
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 
20130621, 16:38  #4 
"Matthew Anderson"
Dec 2010
Oregon, USA
1124_{8} Posts 
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!

20130621, 17:11  #5 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
2·3·5·79 Posts 
Impressive, indeed, and in only 5 week. Now it might become difficult to improve he bound.

20130621, 23:35  #6 
May 2013
East. Always East.
11·157 Posts 
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 10^{100,000,000} and 10^{1,000,000,000} (this is a gap of basically 10^{1,000,000,000} which is a LOT bigger than even 10^{7}) the proof still holds. It is just saying that there is ALWAYS a next set of sibling primes. 
20130622, 03:12  #7 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
5×11×157 Posts 
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
Last fiddled with by LaurV on 20130622 at 03:15 Reason: /s/mad/made :smile: hehe, that was unintentional, I swear! 
20130622, 05:07  #8 
May 2013
East. Always East.
1727_{10} Posts 
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. 
20130622, 05:39  #9 
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
12762_{8} Posts 
I don't see where anyone suggested such a thing. I think we here all knew what the announcement meant.

20130622, 05:44  #10 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
8635_{10} Posts 
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 20130622 at 05:45 
20130622, 16:17  #11 
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
2889_{10} Posts 
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 20130622 at 16:23 
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  20181017 00:11 
Higher order Wierferich prime pairs  carpetpool  Miscellaneous Math  2  20180415 00:28 
Counting Goldbach Prime Pairs Up To...  Steve One  Miscellaneous Math  8  20180306 19:20 
Proof Claimed for Deep Connection between Prime Numbers  Jeff Gilchrist  Math  1  20120911 14:42 
decimalbinary prime pairs  ixfd64  Math  2  20031016 13:40 