Does this imply infinite twin primes?

In summary, the conversation discusses the twin prime counting function and its representation in the form of \pi_2(n)=f(n)+\pi(n)+\pi(n+2)-n-1. It also explores the argument that if the function becomes a constant, it leads to a contradiction and therefore there must be an infinite number of twin primes. However, it is not clear whether the function continues to change parity once the largest twin prime is surpassed, and the exact definitions of the twin prime and twin composite counting functions are also unclear. The conversation concludes by suggesting that proving the twin prime conjecture is equivalent to proving that the function f(p_n) changes parity infinitely many times.
  • #1
e2theipi2026
9
1
I can prove the twin prime counting function has this form:

[tex]\pi_2(n)=f(n)+\pi(n)+\pi(n+2)-n-1,[/tex]

where [itex]\pi_2(n)[/itex] is the twin prime counting function, [itex]f(n)[/itex] is the number of twin composites less than or equal to [itex]n[/itex] and [itex]\pi(n)[/itex] is the prime counting function.

At [itex]n=p_n,[/itex] this becomes

[tex]\pi_2(p_n) = f(p_n) + \pi(p_n) + \pi(p_n + 2) - p_n - 1.[/tex]

With this form, can I make the following argument?: Assume the twin prime counting function becomes a constant [itex]c[/itex], then I can change the twin prime counting function to [itex]c[/itex] in the equation. The prime counting function [itex]\pi(n)[/itex] at the prime sequence [itex]p_n[/itex] is just [itex]n[/itex], so I can change that to [itex]n[/itex]. Because I'm assuming no more twin primes, [itex]p_n+2[/itex] is not a prime so [itex]\pi(p_n+2)[/itex] will also become [itex]n[/itex], the equation directly above this paragraph can therefore be simplified to:

[tex]c = f(p_n) + 2n - p_n - 1.[/tex]

Adding [itex]1[/itex] to both sides of this and rearranging it gives,

[tex]p_n - f(p_n) = 2n - b[/tex], where [itex]b=c+1.[/itex]

The right side of [itex]p_n - f(p_n) = 2n - b[/itex]

has only one possible parity, either odd or even because it is an even number [itex]2n[/itex] minus a constant [itex]b.[/itex]

But, the left side can be both odd and even many times over because [itex]f(p_n)[/itex] can be odd or even and is subtracted from [itex]p_n[/itex] which is odd for [itex]p>2.[/itex]
So, the left side will change parity for different values of [itex]n,[/itex] while the right side of the equation will remain one parity. Therefore, the two sides cannot be equal for all [itex]n.[/itex]

This seems to show the twin prime counting function cannot become constant and therefore, there are infinite twin primes. Now assuming I can prove the form given at the beginning of this question, does that argument hold water?
 
  • Like
Likes theBin
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It is not clear that the LHS of the final equation continues to change sign, once the largest twin-prime T is surpassed. Can you prove that there exist ##m,n\geq T## such that ##p_n-f(p_n)## and ##p_m-f(p_m)## have different parity? If not, the argument from parity collapses.
Also, it is unclear exactly what the twin-prime and twin composite counting functions do. Does f(10) count the pair (8,10) as one or as two? Does f(9) include both, one or neither of that pair? The same questions need to be answered for ##\pi_2##.
 
  • Like
Likes e2theipi2026
  • #3
Only counting once. Twin prime counting function is counting "smaller" twin primes and twin composite version is counting "smaller" twin composites. As an example for the composite version: given 22,23,24,25,26,27 it would count every even number and include 25, but it would not count 27 because 29 is prime. So the odd composites have the real effect on the count, since all even [itex]n>2[/itex] are counted. As for proving ##p_n-f(p_n)## and ##p_n-f(p_n)## have different parity, it would come down to proving [itex]f(p_n)[/itex] changes parity infinitely many times. No proof for that at present. Not sure if I can, I will try. It would seem impossible otherwise though. The latter would imply that the number of smaller twin composites [itex]<=n[/itex] becomes always even or always odd. It would seem that what I have done is showed that the twin prime conjecture is equivalent to proving [itex]f(p_n)[/itex] changes parity infinitely many times. Thank you for responding by the way. :)
 
Last edited:

1. What are twin primes?

Twin primes are prime numbers that are two numbers apart, such as 41 and 43. They have a difference of 2 between them and share no other common factors besides 1.

2. What is the significance of infinite twin primes?

Infinite twin primes have been a topic of fascination for mathematicians for centuries. The search for an infinite number of these pairs has been ongoing, but it is still an unsolved problem.

3. Is there a formula for finding twin primes?

Currently, there is no known formula for finding twin primes. However, there are several conjectures and ongoing research on this topic.

4. How many twin primes are known to exist?

As of 2021, the largest known twin prime has over 24 million digits. There are currently an infinite number of known twin primes, but it is believed that there are an infinite number of these pairs.

5. Does the existence of infinite twin primes imply the existence of infinite prime numbers?

No, the existence of infinite twin primes does not necessarily imply the existence of infinite prime numbers. While it is believed that there are an infinite number of both, this has not been proven yet.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
768
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
553
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
824
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top