User Name Remember Me? Password

 Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum

 October 31st, 2018, 01:06 AM #21 Newbie   Joined: Sep 2017 From: Belgium Posts: 19 Thanks: 7 Even if you rephrase.....it is not enough. Let's build successive sets of prime candidates by successive sieving of $p_n$. First we take all positive natural numbers: $A_0=$N$^+\backslash\{1\}$ where you removed $p_0=1$. $A_1$ is a new set where we remove any multiple of $p_1=2$ from the previous $A_0$ set. $\frac{1}{2}$ of all candidates from that set were removed. $A_2$ is a new set where we remove any multiple of $p_2=3$ from the previous $A_1$ set. $\frac{1}{3}$ of all candidates from that set were removed (yes, multiple of $3$ is $\frac{1}{3}$ of all naturals but also $\frac{1}{3}$ of the remaining $A_1$ set). $A_n$ is a new set where we remove any multiple of $p_n$ from the previous $A_{n-1}$ set. $\frac{1}{p_n}$ of all candidates from that set were removed. Since at each step we build a new infinite set where we only remove a (smaller and smaller) fraction of the previous one, it is not possible to end up with an empty set (they are all infinite), therefore there must be infinitely many primes. Well, this "proof" is flawed (or should I say, incomplete). Now let's do the same with twins: Let's build successive sets of twin candidates by successive sieving of $p_n$. First we sieve $2$ and $3$ and we are left with $A_2=\{(5,7),(11,13),(17,19),(23,25),(29,31),(35,3 7),(41,43),(47,49),(53,55),(59,61),...\}$ the set of twin candidates. $A_3$ is a new set where we remove any multiple of $p_3=5$ (and its "binomial") from the previous $A_2$ set. $\frac{2}{5}$ of all candidates from that set were removed. $A_3=\{(11,13),(17,19),(29,31),(41,43),(47,49),(59 ,61),...\}$ $A_n$ is a new set where we remove any multiple of $p_n$ (and its "binomial") from the previous $A_{n-1}$ set. $\frac{2}{p_n}$ of all candidates from that set were removed (no flaw here, this can be proved). Since at each step we build a new infinite set where we only remove a (smaller and smaller) fraction of the previous one, it is not possible to end up with an empty set (they are all infinite), therefore there must be infinitely many twins. Well, this "proof" has the same big flaw as the previous one. Although it can be easily fixed for the primes, for the twins, this is another story. Without "rigorous" math, can you fix the flaw, let even spot it? Last edited by skipjack; October 31st, 2018 at 02:35 AM. Tags conjecture, prime, proof, twin Thread Tools Show Printable Version Email this Page Display Modes Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded 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 Macky Number Theory 8 September 28th, 2010 11:39 AM MrAwojobi Number Theory 51 August 9th, 2010 11:09 AM ogajajames Number Theory 4 April 26th, 2010 05:51 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top      