My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
January 1st, 2017, 08:15 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2010

Posts: 158
Thanks: 4

Twin prime conjecture proof

TWIN PRIME CONJECTURE PROOF
Primes > 3 and their odd multiples that are not multiples of 3 are of the form 6n ± 1, where n is a positive integer. Consider a sieving process operating on numbers of the form 6n ± 1 that are arranged in ascending order i.e. 5,7,11,13,17,19,23,25,29,31,35,37, … In this sieving process, a number will be eliminated only once. So 5 eliminates its multiples ≠ 5 in ascending order i.e. 5x5, 5x7, 5x11, 5x13, 5x17, 5x19, 5x23, 5x5x5, 5x29, 5x31, 5x5x7, 5x37, 5x41, 5x43, 5x47, 5x7x7, 5x53, 5x5x11, … and then 7 eliminates its multiples ≠ 7 that are not multiples of 5 i.e. 7x7, 7x11, 7x13, ... and then 11 eliminates its multiples ≠ 11 that are not multiples of 5 and 7 starting from 11x11 and so on. So the numbers that will not be eliminated in this process are the prime numbers > 3. Consider a finite part of the infinite sequence described above. Let the last number in this sequence be N, where N is some multiple of 5 of the form 6n ± 1. In the sieve described here, it should be clear that the number of multiples of 5 eliminated in the number sequence > the number of non-multiples of 5 eliminated for any N. Also the minimum difference between any 2 multiples of 5 is 10 and there will be a pair of numbers, 6n-1 and 6n+1, in between these 2 multiples of 5. For instance, 5x23 =115 and 5x5x5 =125. 119 and 121 are of the form 6n-1 and 6n+1 respectively and in between 115 and 125. Larger differences mean more than 1 pair of 6n ± 1 e.g. consecutive multiples 5x7=35 and 5x11=55 in the sequence above have a difference of 20 between them and will have 41, 43 (of the form 6n-1, 6n+1 respectively) and 47, 49 (of the form 6n-1, 6n+1 respectively) in between them. This means that, for any N > 5x13=65 (see sequence above), the number of multiples of 5 of the form 6n ± 1 < the number of pairs of 6n ± 1. This means that the non-multiples of 5 of the form 6n ± 1 eliminated < the number of pairs of 6n ± 1. This therefore means that there will always be pairs of 6n ± 1, the twin primes, that will not be eliminated. The twin prime conjecture is true i.e. there are infinitely many twin primes.
MrAwojobi is offline  
 
January 1st, 2017, 08:25 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia

Posts: 1,232
Thanks: 427

Math Focus: Yet to find out.
Paragraphs! Slabs of text are hard to read.
Joppy is offline  
January 1st, 2017, 11:27 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 686
Thanks: 284

I doubt merely paragraphing this particular text would provide any help.

There is no concise overview of the proof. Indeed, nothing is concise. For example it takes over five lines to say:

Consider the sequence of all primes greater than 3 taken in ascending order, all of which can be expressed in the form $6n \pm 1.$
JeffM1 is offline  
January 1st, 2017, 12:13 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2010

Posts: 158
Thanks: 4

So why do you have a problem with the fact that I have made my proof accessible to college kids by stating 5 lines that you have compressed into 1 line. At least you didn't have a problem with the mathematics. Make comments about the mathematics instead of criticizing the presentation.
MrAwojobi is offline  
January 1st, 2017, 12:31 PM   #5
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 17,524
Thanks: 1318

MrAwojobi considers divisors such as 3 and 5, but higher divisors can turn up. For example, the pair (2117, 2119), where 2117 = 29*73 and 2119 = 13*163.
skipjack is offline  
January 1st, 2017, 12:37 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2010

Posts: 158
Thanks: 4

3 and its multiples never featured in the proof. What is the problem with the higher divisors you talk about? I don't really get your point.
MrAwojobi is offline  
January 1st, 2017, 01:04 PM   #7
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 17,524
Thanks: 1318

You implicitly omitted multiples of 3, because the numbers 6n ± 1 cannot have 3 as a divisor.

The pair (2117, 2119) isn't eliminated by the process you describe, but isn't a prime pair (neither is prime in that example). You haven't shown that it isn't the case that every sufficiently large pair turns out not to be a prime pair. You're effectively saying "it should be clear" that isn't the case, but it isn't clear.
skipjack is offline  
January 1st, 2017, 01:10 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2010

Posts: 158
Thanks: 4

They are eliminated by the process I describe. You have answered this query in your previous post already i.e. 13 will eliminate 2119 and 29 will eliminate 2117.
MrAwojobi is offline  
January 1st, 2017, 04:40 PM   #9
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 17,524
Thanks: 1318

Eliminating multiples of 5 leaves some pairs. Likewise, eliminating multiples of 7 leaves some pairs. It's not clear, though, that this can be continued indefinitely, as you haven't proved that some pairs always remain.
skipjack is offline  
January 1st, 2017, 04:50 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia

Posts: 1,232
Thanks: 427

Math Focus: Yet to find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM1 View Post
I doubt merely paragraphing this particular text would provide any help.
Just a pet peeve of mine, regardless of the contents validity. In this case it would aid in the readers ability to easily correct any mistakes made by OP. Unless that was intentional.
Joppy is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
conjecture, prime, proof, twin



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The proof of the Twin Primes conjecture Al7-8Ex5-3:Fe#!D%03 Number Theory 3 September 30th, 2013 04:52 PM
Attempted Twin Prime proof Hedge Number Theory 41 August 22nd, 2012 09:54 AM
Twin Prime Conjecture Macky Number Theory 8 September 28th, 2010 11:39 AM
Proof of the Twin Prime Conjecture MrAwojobi Number Theory 51 August 9th, 2010 11:09 AM
Twin prime conjecture(help) ogajajames Number Theory 4 April 26th, 2010 05:51 AM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.