Proof involving pairs of prime numbers

Messages
19,773
Reaction score
10,726
It’s a result only a mathematician could love. Researchers hoping to get ‘2’ as the answer for a long-sought proof involving pairs of prime numbers are celebrating the fact that a mathematician has wrestled the value down from infinity to 70 million.

“That’s only [a factor of] 35 million away” from the target, quips Dan Goldston, an analytic number theorist at San Jose State University in California who was not involved in the work. “Every step down is a step towards the ultimate answer.”

http://www.nature.com/news/first-proof-that-infinitely-many-prime-numbers-come-in-pairs-1.12989
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
So it doesn't involve twins of primes, which is important to distinguish. Only that the gap between primes is less than 70,000,000.
 
Still a major step forward, and often a new method like this can be improved over time. And it happened. Within just one year the upper bound could be reduced to 246.
It can be reduced to 12 or 6 if the Elliott–Halberstam conjecture or its generalization can be shown to be true.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
150
Views
30K
2
Replies
67
Views
14K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Back
Top