My Math Forum Proof of twin prime conjecture
 User Name Remember Me? Password

 Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum

 January 2nd, 2019, 06:00 AM #11 Senior Member   Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 684 Thanks: 222 So you're not going to explain the missing step?
 January 2nd, 2019, 07:35 AM #12 Senior Member   Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 169 Thanks: 4 So it seems what you want to be convinced about is why it takes 1 prime to invalidate the twin prime conjecture and not maybe 2 or more primes. Since we are talking about a sieving process which carries on ad infinitum, can you not see that if the twin prime conjecture is false then it will take just 1 prime to put an end to the infinite number of un-eliminated 6n-1 and 6n+1 ahead of it.
January 2nd, 2019, 08:10 AM   #13
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,245
Thanks: 515

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Micrm@ss Well, it's not. Basically, your proof of the twin-prime conjecture is that "it's obvious". Ok...
I am not quite sure why I bother, but Mr. Awojobi made a typographical error in his first post. What he intended to say is not quite so silly as people have been thinking on the basis of what he actually said.

At great length, he explains the sieve of Eratosthenes and relies on the theorem that every prime greater than 3 can be expressed as 6n - 1 or 6n + 1, where n is a positive integers. Now what he is going on about is this. He considers the infinite set of pairs of numbers

{(6 * 1 - 1, 6 * 1 + 1), (6 * 2 - 1, 6 * 2 + 1), ...). Let's label these pairs by the factor of 6.

He then MEANS to assert that if there exists a positive integer u that divides
either 6v - 1 or 6v + 1 for every integer v $\ge$ w, a positive integer,

then the twin prime hypothesis is NOT true.

Because every prime > 3 is in his set of pairs, every twin prime from (5, 7) is in his set. If u divides one member of each set of pairs from from the wth pair on, that member is not prime and so that pair is not a pair of twin primes. In fact, under that supposition, the number of twin primes is w - 1, a finite number. Therefore, if such a u exists, the hypothesis of an infinitude of twin primes is false.

This is a perfectly valid conditional argument. Of course, in his original presentation, he muffed it by saying that if u exists, the hypothesis of the infinitude of twin primes is true.

He then presents an argument that such a u does not exist. I have not bothered to try to penetrate his prose in order to evaluate that argument because, as he originally intended to proceed, he was arguing

$\{\{\alpha \implies \neg \ \beta\} \text { and } \neg \ \alpha\} \implies \beta.$

This of course is a fallacy as I showed by a child-like example in my previous post.

January 2nd, 2019, 08:20 AM   #14
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,245
Thanks: 515

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MrAwojobi I have corrected the mistake i.e. 'false' instead of 'true'.
Unfortunately, your correction does not fix your argument. It perhaps fixes one part of your argument (it is difficult to tell given the ambiguities inherent in natural languages).

January 2nd, 2019, 08:30 AM   #15
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,245
Thanks: 515

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MrAwojobi So it seems what you want to be convinced about is why it takes 1 prime to invalidate the twin prime conjecture and not maybe 2 or more primes. Since we are talking about a sieving process which carries on ad infinitum, can you not see that if the twin prime conjecture is false then it will take just 1 prime to put an end to the infinite number of un-eliminated 6n-1 and 6n+1 ahead of it.
No, I cannot see it. You need to prove it. You have given no argument whatsoever that there must be only one such dividing prime if the twin prime conjecture is false.

I agree that if just one dividing prime exists, the conjecture is false. But there could be an infinite set of such dividing primes, some of which do not divide into every pair but which collectively do. In which case, the conjecture is false even though no one dividing prime will do the trick.

January 2nd, 2019, 09:25 AM   #16
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 684
Thanks: 222

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MrAwojobi can you not see that
Nope, I can't see it. Prove it.

 January 2nd, 2019, 09:53 AM #17 Newbie   Joined: Sep 2017 From: Belgium Posts: 13 Thanks: 3 Thanks from topsquark
 January 2nd, 2019, 12:12 PM #18 Senior Member   Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 169 Thanks: 4 Where is the logic when you say say that more than one prime can collectively get rid of the 6n-1 and 6n+1 un-eliminated pairs. How will this happen except for the last of these primes you talk about to do the final elimination. This is what I mean when I say that it takes one prime to do the final elimination if the twin prime conjecture is false.
January 2nd, 2019, 01:30 PM   #19
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,245
Thanks: 515

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MrAwojobi Where is the logic when you say say that more than one prime can collectively get rid of the 6n-1 and 6n+1 un-eliminated pairs. How will this happen except for the last of these primes you talk about to do the final elimination. This is what I mean when I say that it takes one prime to do the final elimination if the twin prime conjecture is false.
Now we have it: there is no "last," no "final." We are discussing whether the number of twin primes is infinite.

January 2nd, 2019, 01:57 PM   #20
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 684
Thanks: 222

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MrAwojobi if the twin prime conjecture is false.
So you are assuming it is false now?

So the logic of your proof is:
Assume twin prime conjecture is false.
Then there is one prime doing the last elimination.
If there is such a prime, then the conjecture is false.
Therefore it's true.

Great logic!

 Tags conjecture, prime, proof, twin

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post MrAwojobi Number Theory 20 October 31st, 2018 02:06 AM Al7-8Ex5-3:Fe#!D%03 Number Theory 3 September 30th, 2013 05:52 PM Macky Number Theory 8 September 28th, 2010 12:39 PM MrAwojobi Number Theory 51 August 9th, 2010 12:09 PM ogajajames Number Theory 4 April 26th, 2010 06:51 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top