My Math Forum Proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture

 Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum

 August 5th, 2010, 07:58 AM #2 Newbie   Joined: Jun 2009 Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Re: Proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture each "wave" may leave some twin prime position(s) un"hit" but that doesn't guarantee that they won't be hit by some following wave.
 August 5th, 2010, 08:02 AM #3 Banned Camp   Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 170 Thanks: 4 Re: Proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture scoracle of course some of them will be hit by some subsequent waves but not all because a fraction of infinity is infinity.
 August 5th, 2010, 01:27 PM #4 Global Moderator     Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC -5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms Re: Proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture Your extremely informal proof is flawed. If it were more rigorous it might show that for any natural number N, there exist infinitely many pairs (n, n+2) where neither n nor n+2 are divisible by any primes below N. But this is not the same as the twin prime conjecture.
 August 5th, 2010, 03:00 PM #5 Banned Camp   Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 170 Thanks: 4 Re: Proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture CRGreathouse concerning your first sentence statement, i.e.,'Your extremely informal proof is flawed. If it were more rigorous......', the questions I pose are 'Why should my proof be formal and more rigorous'? Was Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes rigorous? All I have done here is to use simple mathematics to prove a simple and fascinating observation of twin primes springing up every now and then along the infinite number line. With my proof the fascination with twin primes should now be lost. They should now not be seen as special. Concerning the very brief reason you gave for my proof being flawed, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you be more expressive in what you are trying to say.
August 5th, 2010, 03:27 PM   #6
Global Moderator

Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Re: Proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MrAwojobi concerning your first sentence statement, i.e.,'Your extremely informal proof is flawed. If it were more rigorous......', the questions I pose are 'Why should my proof be formal and more rigorous'?
You don't need to make it more rigorous, but it's doesn't describe anything mathematically correct as written. If you wanted it to, you'd need to make it more rigorous.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MrAwojobi Was Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes rigorous?
Yes.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MrAwojobi All I have done here is to use simple mathematics to prove a simple and fascinating observation of twin primes springing up every now and then along the infinite number line.
You have not done so.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MrAwojobi Concerning the very brief reason you gave for my proof being flawed, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you be more expressive in what you are trying to say.
If you will make your proof sufficiently more formal, I'd be willing to point out the issues with it. Until then, I'll decline -- it's too much effort for me to first re-write your 'proof' and then diagnose it.

 August 5th, 2010, 03:51 PM #7 Banned Camp   Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 170 Thanks: 4 Re: Proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture CRGreathouse you keep talking about 'making my proof rigorous'. It doesn't need to be simply because a fraction of infinity will always be infinity. I await anyone who is ready to dispute this last statement. If no one can then that means that the twin prime conjecture is true.
August 5th, 2010, 04:17 PM   #8
Newbie

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 13
Thanks: 0

Re: Proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture

Quote:
 It doesn't need to be simply because a fraction of infinity will always be infinity. I await anyone who is ready to dispute this last statement.
what is a fraction of infinity?

 August 5th, 2010, 04:40 PM #9 Senior Member   Joined: Aug 2008 From: Blacksburg VA USA Posts: 354 Thanks: 7 Math Focus: primes of course Re: Proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture well, playing devil's advocate, I'll choose my fractional multiplier to be xactly the inverse of N. As N increases, even to infinity, I believe my fraction of N will always be =1, quite finite.
August 5th, 2010, 05:04 PM   #10
Global Moderator

Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Re: Proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MrAwojobi you keep talking about 'making my proof rigorous'. It doesn't need to be simply because a fraction of infinity will always be infinity. I await anyone who is ready to dispute this last statement. If no one can then that means that the twin prime conjecture is true.
1. There is no mathematical object called "infinity"; this is a common misunderstanding by nonmathematicians.
2. You have not proved that, for some unspecified infinite object, a fraction of that object is always infinite (or did you mean that it was the same infinite object? This is why you need to be specific...).
3. You have by no means proved that a proof of #2 implies the Twim Prime Conjecture.

Now there are plenty of ways to make #2 correct, depending on your choice of #1. But your method for #3 does not work. You can continue to believe that it does; that wouldn't bother me. If you'd like for me to be more precise, I'll need you to be more precise in setting out your proof.

 Tags conjecture, prime, proof, twin

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

# twin prime number defination

Click on a term to search for related topics.
 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Al7-8Ex5-3:Fe#!D%03 Number Theory 3 September 30th, 2013 04:52 PM Hedge Number Theory 41 August 22nd, 2012 09:54 AM enchev_eg Number Theory 30 September 28th, 2010 08:43 PM Macky Number Theory 8 September 28th, 2010 11:39 AM ogajajames Number Theory 4 April 26th, 2010 05:51 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top