
Re: First Proof That Infinitely Many Prime Numbers Come in Pairs
Posted:
May 24, 2013 1:16 AM


On May 24, 2:21 pm, joship...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:48:03 PM UTC+5:30, quasi wrote: > > joshipura wrote: > > > >I am not a mathematician  but can understand prime numbers, > > > >and even the hypothesis under discussion. > > > >I wanted to tell to my children (who also know about prime > > > >numbers) about this development. Here is my script: > > > >"For years mathematicians are struggling to prove that they > > > >will always find larger and larger cases of p where p and p+2 > > > >both are primes. > > > >Someone recently proved that if p is a prime number, within > > > >p + 70,000,000 there is another prime number q, no matter > > > >how large p is. > > > No. > > > Let d = 70,000,000. > > > It's not true that for all primes p there is a prime q with > > > p < q <= p + d. > > > For example, let p be the largest prime less than (d + 1)! + 2 > > > and let q be the least prime greater than p. Then q > p + d, so > > > there are no primes in the range p + 1 to p + d inclusive. > > > What was proved is that there are infinitely many primes pairs > > > p,q with p < q <= p + d. > > > quasi > > OK. So here goes changed script for review: > "For years mathematicians are struggling to prove that they will always find larger and larger cases of p where p and p+2 both are primes. > > Someone recently proved that > ** > there are as many prime numbers p and q less than 70,000,000 apart as you want > **
a minor nit pic...
you're implying an algorithm exists such snd such...
which although true, it is not considered as being solved by engineering standards
as O( prime ) = 10^prime
to actually find them incrementally (at will).
How many pairs < 70million apart have been found?
Herc  www.BLoCKPROLOG.com

