My Math Forum  

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

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
January 2nd, 2019, 02:39 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 550

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micrm@ss View Post
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!
@Micrm

I think that you are not quite following what his argument boils down to.

I think what he originally intended (but did not say) was this syllogism:

(1) If there exist unique integers m and u such that for any integer n $\ge$ m > 0 u either (6n - 1)/u or (6n + 1)/u is an integer, then the conjecture is false.

(2) No such m and u exist.

(3) Therefore the conjecture is true.

The first proposition is self-evidently true because it would entail that at least one member of each 6n - 1 and 6n + 1 pair was composite. I suspect that the second proposition is also true but did not attempt a proof because even if both propositions 1 and 2 are true, proposition 3 does not follow as a consequence. The syllogism is a well known fallacy.

I may have misunderstood what he was originally trying to say. In any case, he seems now to have revised his argument.

(1a) Only if there exists unique integers m and u such that, for any integer n $\ge$ m, either (6n - 1)/u or (6n + 1)/u is an integer will the conjecture be false.

(2a) No such m and u exist.

(3a) Therefore the conjecture is true.

THAT is a valid syllogism. But proposition (1a) is no longer self-evidently true, and no proof has been forthcoming except hand-waving about "last" and "final" in the context of infinite sets. In fact, I suspect proposition 1a is false.

Last edited by JeffM1; January 2nd, 2019 at 03:12 PM.
JeffM1 is offline  
 
January 2nd, 2019, 04:39 PM   #22
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Aug 2010

Posts: 170
Thanks: 4

I have explained why no prime greater than 3 can eliminate the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs. I have said that this is because every prime greater than 3 will always hop over an infinite number of un-eliminated 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs within the vicinity of a class of multiples of the prime. So it is impossible for any prime to eliminate the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs.
MrAwojobi is offline  
January 2nd, 2019, 05:34 PM   #23
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,093
Thanks: 853

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAwojobi View Post
I have explained why no prime greater than 3 can eliminate the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs.
You've explained the criterion but you haven't offered an actual proof of anything. Of course the 6n -1 and 6n + 1 pairs can be eliminated if you use primes of a sufficient size by using Eratosthene's sieve, but the sieve doesn't even cancel out all numbers not of the form above. So there is a gap in your concept that needs to be worked on.

So prove to us why "why no prime greater than 3 can eliminate the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs." Don't try for a convincing argument, nail it down with the Mathematics.

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
January 2nd, 2019, 06:01 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 550

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAwojobi View Post
I have explained why no prime greater than 3 can eliminate the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs. I have said that this is because every prime greater than 3 will always hop over an infinite number of un-eliminated 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs within the vicinity of a class of multiples of the prime. So it is impossible for any prime to eliminate the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs.
You have not explained why the elimination must be done by a single prime.
JeffM1 is offline  
January 2nd, 2019, 07:03 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 494
Thanks: 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAwojobi View Post
I have explained why no prime greater than 3 can eliminate the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs. I have said that this is because every prime greater than 3 will always hop over an infinite number of un-eliminated 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs within the vicinity of a class of multiples of the prime. So it is impossible for any prime to eliminate the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs.
Every prime greater than 3 will "hop over" (when sequencially eliminating its multiples on a number line after having eliminated all the multiples of previous primes under a standard ordering, and where "hop over" implies "fail to eliminate") an infinite number of 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs, yes. I do understand you perfectly and I know that many others (myself included) have noticed this fact over the years.

Proof:

$$\text{Let } x = p_1*p_2*p_3*...*p_i$$
$$\text{Then } x+1 \text{ and } x-1 \text{ will fail to be eliminated by the primes } \leq p_i$$
$$\text{The same goes for } 2x+1 \text{ and } 2x-1, 3x+1 \text{ and } 3x-1, ...$$


That said, I didn't read your OP nor do I intend to try... It's a big messy paragraph that I don't want to try to unravel.

I personally have no idea why this doesn't solve the twin prime conjecture, but that's a shortcoming of my own as opposed to a proposed acceptance of your work. I'm sure there is a good explanation (and perhaps it has already been provided for you above).

Last edited by AplanisTophet; January 2nd, 2019 at 07:06 PM.
AplanisTophet is offline  
January 2nd, 2019, 08:02 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
romsek's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: USA

Posts: 2,382
Thanks: 1281

Quote:
Originally Posted by Collag3n View Post
but but... 2019 isn't prime!
romsek is offline  
January 3rd, 2019, 02:06 AM   #27
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Aug 2010

Posts: 170
Thanks: 4

So it seems not to be in dispute that every prime greater than 3 will always hop over un-eliminated 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs. Can you therefore not see that this means that there are infinitely many twin primes because for there not to be infinitely many twin primes, it takes one and only one prime to do away with all the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs ahead of it. No short prime exists because of the first sentence above.
MrAwojobi is offline  
January 3rd, 2019, 02:09 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 753
Thanks: 261

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAwojobi View Post
for there not to be infinitely many twin primes, it takes one and only one prime to do away with all the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs ahead of it.
Prove it
Micrm@ss is offline  
January 3rd, 2019, 03:20 AM   #29
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,093
Thanks: 853

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAwojobi View Post
So it seems not to be in dispute that every prime greater than 3 will always hop over un-eliminated 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs. Can you therefore not see that this means that there are infinitely many twin primes because for there not to be infinitely many twin primes, it takes one and only one prime to do away with all the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs ahead of it. No short prime exists because of the first sentence above.
Hey, if you want to try to go to the Journals and present this then they'll laugh themselves silly.

Or you could, you know, listen to us and learn something.... Maybe even improve on your own argument.

It makes little difference to me.

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
January 3rd, 2019, 04:17 AM   #30
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Aug 2010

Posts: 170
Thanks: 4

For there not to be infinitely many twin primes, it takes one and only one prime to do away with all the remaining 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs ahead of it. I will prove this statement which I thought would be quite obvious to those who just do a little bit of thinking about it. Since we are dealing with infinitely many 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs, is it not obvious that if the twin primes are finite then only one prime is needed to eliminate all the infinite number of un-eliminated 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs? It will be absurd to say 5 primes for instance will be needed to collectively eliminate the 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs because that will mean that the first of the 5 primes did not remove all the 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs and similarly the second, third and fourth did not remove all the 6n-1 and 6n+1 pairs. It will be the fifth prime that will achieve this i.e. one and only one prime will be required to render the twin prime conjecture false. We are in agreement from previous posts that no prime can do this and so the twin prime conjecture is true, no doubt.
MrAwojobi is offline  
Closed Thread

  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
Twin prime conjecture proof MrAwojobi Number Theory 20 October 31st, 2018 01:06 AM
The proof of the Twin Primes conjecture Al7-8Ex5-3:Fe#!D%03 Number Theory 3 September 30th, 2013 04:52 PM
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 © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.