Prime Number Gaps - What's the Largest Integer Difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rad0786
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the study of gaps between prime numbers, with participants noting that these gaps can be arbitrarily large. It is established that the prime gaps are unbounded due to the nature of prime distribution, as highlighted by Bertrand's postulate, which guarantees at least one prime between any number n and 2n. The asymptotic density of primes approaches zero, indicating that while gaps can be large, the frequency of primes diminishes as numbers increase. Various mathematical works, including those by Helmut Maier, are referenced to support these points. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexity and ongoing research surrounding prime number gaps.
rad0786
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,

I'd first like to say that I am uninformed on this subject and that I have a question to the mathematicians on these forums who know about the subject.

In the set of all prime numbers, has the integer gaps between two prime numbers been studied? I mean, do mathematicans know what the largest difference is between two prime numbers?

Im interested in this subject and I would like to know..

Thanks in advance.

--rad
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The gap can be arbitrarily large. Just consider n!+2, n!+3,...n!+n.

Lots of work has been done, you might want to take a look at Caldwell's prime pages: http://primes.utm.edu/notes/gaps.html
 
Since the primes have measure 0, prime gaps must be unbounded in length. Think about it -- if every k integers had a prime number for some fixed k, then some primes would have common (nontrivial) factors.
 
i refer you to the work of helmut maier.

Helmut Maier
Primes in short intervals.

Source: Michigan Math. J. 32, iss. 2 (1985), 221
 
CRGreathouse said:
Since the primes have measure 0

the integers have measure zero, but the gaps between consecutive integers is not unbounded.
 
matt grime said:
the integers have measure zero, but the gaps between consecutive integers is not unbounded.

What I mean is that for a set X\in\mathbb{N} with

\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac1n\sum_{x\in X|x\le n}x=0

\forall n\in\mathbb{N}\;\;\exists m\in\mathbb{N} such that there is no x\in X with m\le x\le m+n. (The set of primes is of course such a set by the PNT.) I'm sorry if I was ambiguous.
 
Last edited:
You want:

\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac1n\sum_{x\in X|x\le n}1=0

or equivalently here pi(n)/n->0 as n->infinity. In otherwords, the asymptotic density of the primes is zero.
 
According to Bertrand's postulate, there is at least one prime between n and 2n-2, for any n>3. I wonder if there is a theorem about the number of primes between n and 2n exclusive (see http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A060715 ), because that number seems to be steadily increasing over a sufficiently large period of the sequence (sorry if this is not precise enough); what I mean is that, for n=5, for instance, the number of primes between n and 2n is 1, but, it seems, for any n > 5 the number of primes between n and 2n is greater than 1; similarly, for n= 8, the number of primes between n and 2n is 2, but for any n>8, the number of primes between n and 2n is greater than 2 (?), and so on.

If it is true that for any m >= 1 there is an n for which the number of primes between k and 2k, k>=n, is greater than m (is it?) then there is a limit on prime gaps as well, depending on m (or n), I think (although Bertrand's postulate itself puts a limit on prime gaps, depending on n).

What I mean by Bertrand's postulate putting a limit on prime gaps is that for any prime p, there is another prime between p+1 and 2p.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pi(2n)-pi(n)~n/log(n) by the prime number theorem, so the number of primes in [n,2n] tends to infinity as n does.

The bound Bertrands puts on the gap to the next prime is pretty far from what's known to be true (though correspondingly simpler to prove!). For example, if n is large enough, we can guarantee a prime in [n,n+n^0.525].
 
  • #10
CRGreathouse said:
What I mean is that for a set X\in\mathbb{N} with

\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac1n\sum_{x\in X|x\le n}x=0

\forall n\in\mathbb{N}\;\;\exists m\in\mathbb{N} such that there is no x\in X with m\le x\le m+n. (The set of primes is of course such a set by the PNT.) I'm sorry if I was ambiguous.

density, not measure.
 
  • #11
shmoe said:
You want:

\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac1n\sum_{x\in X|x\le n}1=0

or equivalently here pi(n)/n->0 as n->infinity. In otherwords, the asymptotic density of the primes is zero.

Oops, you're absolutely right. That's what I meant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K