A Does this imply infinite twin primes?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the twin prime counting function and its implications for the existence of infinite twin primes. A proposed equation for the twin prime counting function suggests that if it were to become constant, it would lead to a contradiction regarding parity between two sides of an equation. The argument hinges on the behavior of the function f(n), which counts twin composites, and its parity changes as n varies. There are questions about how twin primes and twin composites are counted, particularly regarding the treatment of specific pairs. Ultimately, the conclusion drawn is that proving the behavior of f(p_n) in terms of parity is crucial to establishing the twin prime conjecture.
e2theipi2026
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
I can prove the twin prime counting function has this form:

\pi_2(n)=f(n)+\pi(n)+\pi(n+2)-n-1,

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

At n=p_n, this becomes

\pi_2(p_n) = f(p_n) + \pi(p_n) + \pi(p_n + 2) - p_n - 1.

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

c = f(p_n) + 2n - p_n - 1.

Adding 1 to both sides of this and rearranging it gives,

p_n - f(p_n) = 2n - b, where b=c+1.

The right side of p_n - f(p_n) = 2n - b

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

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

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
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
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 n>2 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 f(p_n) 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 <=n 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 f(p_n) changes parity infinitely many times. Thank you for responding by the way. :)
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top