Date: May 17, 2013 9:34 AM
Author: Pubkeybreaker
Subject: Re: First Proof That Infinitely Many Prime Numbers Come in Pairs
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.