In article <email@example.com>, Pubkeybreaker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>This is a gross misstatement of the proof. It did NOT prove that there >were infinitely many prime pairs. What it did prove was that the gap >between primes is FINITELY BOUNDED infinitely often. The bound is 70 >x 10^6.
I agree that the article (quoted from Scientific American) is unclear, but it appears to be using "prime pairs" to mean "successive primes", and "twin primes" to mean "prime pairs where the difference is 2".
That makes the headline misleading because we already knew there were infinitely many pairs of successive primes.