On May 17, 6:42 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote: > In article <4c7758a5-2b88-4756-91f1-d59d43bcd...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > > Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> 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.
Not with a finitely bounded gap between them we didn't.