Go back
Prime problem

Prime problem

Posers and Puzzles

Shallow Blue

Joined
18 Jan 07
Moves
12477
Clock
02 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Here's an interesting prime number problem.

We know that there is no highest prime number (trivial). We have also proved that, as we go up the number line, prime numbers get scarcer (decidedly non-trivial) and that there is no highest distance between two consecutive prime numbers (a moderately obvious corrolary thereof).


What I want to know is: is it true that all even distances between consecutive prime numbers occur?

Obviously it's not true for all positive distances, because there's only one even prime, so odd distances must always involve 2, and the only prime number consecutive to 2 is 3. Odd distances other than 1 are impossible. But it might be true for even distances.


Next question: if the above is not true, is it true that al even distances occur between prime numbers, not necessarily consecutive ones?

(This one is definitely not true for odd distances, either: 2+7 isn't prime.)


For the record: I have no idea whether either conjecture is true. I don't even know where to start solving it. But someone on this forum might. And if not, someone on this forum might win a Fields Medal for solving them!

Richard

talzamir
Art, not a Toil

60.13N / 25.01E

Joined
19 Sep 11
Moves
59273
Clock
02 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Proving that is fields prize stuff most likely. Seems that prime gaps have captured the fascination of others too. The links from this place could prove helpful..

http://oeis.org/A001223

Shallow Blue

Joined
18 Jan 07
Moves
12477
Clock
03 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by talzamir
Proving that is fields prize stuff most likely. Seems that prime gaps have captured the fascination of others too. The links from this place could prove helpful..

http://oeis.org/A001223
Yeah, I'm afraid that's true. But it seems such a simple problem - it took me just two minutes of fiddling about with prime numbers to come up with it! And it's probably going to take someone a couple of decades to prove it, or even disprove it.

Richard

deriver69
Keeps

Shanghai

Joined
16 Feb 06
Moves
132490
Clock
04 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

For the first conjecture is there any mileage in investigating how scarce prime numbers are getting and whether the gaps tend to be increasing at a rate too fast to accomodate all even numbers? (By any mileage I am meaning by someone far cleverer than me).

The second one I imagine would be a nightmare.

I do love these remarkably simple but hard to prove problems.

iamatiger

Joined
26 Apr 03
Moves
26771
Clock
06 Aug 12
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

The differences between consecutive prime numbers can get arbitrarily large, as described (under "simple observations" ) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap

But this does not give a way to generate a arbitrary distance, so it does not prove that all even integers are possible gaps.

However a perusal of the above page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number_theorem
illustrates how tricky proving just about anything to do with prime numbers is.

t

Joined
15 Jun 06
Moves
16334
Clock
06 Aug 12
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

This is true FACT! There problem solved, I proved it.


Edit: This is a prime example of illogic.

iamatiger

Joined
26 Apr 03
Moves
26771
Clock
09 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

One "proof" that might work in the hands of a mathematician is:

If there is a difference X, which is even, and is not a possible difference between two consecutive primes, then this, for every prime P would give two numbers P-X and P+X which cannot be primes, such a constraint on which numbers cannot be primes would violate the random distribution of primes.

iamatiger

Joined
26 Apr 03
Moves
26771
Clock
10 Aug 12
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

A couple of provable facts.

Except for the gap between 3 and 5 a gap of 2 (mod 6) can only follow a prime with a value of 5 mod 6 and must precede a prime with a value of 1 mod 6.

a gap of 4 (mod 6) must follow a prime with a value of 1 mod 6, and precede a prime with a value of 5 mod 6.

These are provable from the fact that there are no primes that are 3, mod 6 (except for 3) as any such "primes" would be divisible by 3.

W

Joined
29 Oct 09
Moves
1421
Clock
18 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by iamatiger
One "proof" that might work in the hands of a mathematician is:

If there is a difference X, which is even, and is not a possible difference between two consecutive primes, then this, for every prime P would give two numbers P-X and P+X which cannot be primes, such a constraint on which numbers cannot be primes would violate the random distribution of primes.
That is a very common idea with conjectures about primes. We believe that we already know the patterns in primes. (Tao calls them "conspiracies".) We think there are no more patterns. We find their existence hard to believe. For example, it is hard to believe that there are only finitely many twin primes. If we've already found all the rigidity of primes' behavior, then there should be infinitely many twin primes. But it's one thing to think things like that, and it's another thing to prove them. The latter turns out extremely difficult, and might be impossible in many cases. But we (I mean the more skillful among us) have managed at times. The Green-Tao theorem is a beautiful example. I've never tried to understand the proof, but the fact that it has been proven makes me proud of being a human being.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.