Is the Lim Sup of the Difference of Primes Equal to 1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dragonfall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference Primes
Dragonfall
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
5
Although Andrica's conjecture is still unsolved, I'm told that it is possible to prove that

\lim\sup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sqrt{p_{n+1}}-\sqrt{p_n}=1.

Does anyone know how or can point me to a source?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Who told you that was true? It looks an awful lot like the max occurs when n=4, so the primes 7 and 11 and seems to decrease from there. I've seen it conjectured that the full limit is actually zero, not much of a conjecture if the lim sup was known to be 1.
 
I can't imagine the limit being higher than 0. Heck, find a number that makes it go higher than 0.01 for n > 10^9 and I'll be suprised.
 
Yes, that was a typo. I meant 0.
 
If the lim sup was 0, then the limit would be 0. This was still an unsolved problem according to Guy's 2004 "unsolved problems in number theory".

Maybe they meant

\lim\inf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sqrt{p_{n+1}}-\sqrt{p_n}=0

which you can manage. Use the fact that p_{n+1}-p_{n}\leq \log p_n is true infinitely often (much more is true actually, see Goldstom, Pintz and Yildrims recent work).
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top