Error in Twin Prime Conjecture












3












$begingroup$


Euclid's theorem states:




Consider any finite list of prime numbers $p_1, p_2, ..., p_n$. It will be shown that at least one additional prime number not in this list exists. Let $P$ be the product of all the prime numbers in the list: $P = p_1p_2...p_n$. Let $q = P + 1$. Then $q$ is either prime or not.



If $q$ is prime, then there is at least one more prime that is not in the list. If $q$ is not prime, then some prime factor $p$ divides $q$. If this factor $p$ were in our list, then it would divide $P$ (since $P$ is the product of every number in the list); but $p$ divides $P + 1 = q$. If $p$ divides $P$ and $q$, then $p$ would have to divide the difference of the two numbers, which is $(P + 1) − P$ or just $1$. Since no prime number divides $1$, $p$ cannot be on the list. This means that at least one more prime number exists beyond those in the list. This proves that for every finite list of prime numbers there is a prime number not in the list, and therefore there must be infinitely many prime numbers.





My question:



Does this theorem also hold if you let $q = P - 1$?



Wouldn't $P-1$ also be necessarily a new prime number? And if so, it and $P+1$ would be a set of twin primes.




So the proof would be:



Assume there are a finite number of twin primes such that $p_{n+1} - p_n = 2$.



Then, from the final set of twin primes, choose the larger of these two primes $p_{n+1}$. Calculate $S=p_1p_2...p_{n+1}$. So you now have a product of all primes up to $p_{n+1}$. Call this $S$. $S + 1$ is a prime number and so is $S - 1$. This is a new set of twin primes not in our original list, thus there cannot be a finite list of twin primes.



Of course, if $S - 1$ is not prime, then this falls apart.






proof-verification prime-numbers prime-twins







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
    $endgroup$
    – Noe Blassel
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    4 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


Euclid's theorem states:




Consider any finite list of prime numbers $p_1, p_2, ..., p_n$. It will be shown that at least one additional prime number not in this list exists. Let $P$ be the product of all the prime numbers in the list: $P = p_1p_2...p_n$. Let $q = P + 1$. Then $q$ is either prime or not.



If $q$ is prime, then there is at least one more prime that is not in the list. If $q$ is not prime, then some prime factor $p$ divides $q$. If this factor $p$ were in our list, then it would divide $P$ (since $P$ is the product of every number in the list); but $p$ divides $P + 1 = q$. If $p$ divides $P$ and $q$, then $p$ would have to divide the difference of the two numbers, which is $(P + 1) − P$ or just $1$. Since no prime number divides $1$, $p$ cannot be on the list. This means that at least one more prime number exists beyond those in the list. This proves that for every finite list of prime numbers there is a prime number not in the list, and therefore there must be infinitely many prime numbers.





My question:



Does this theorem also hold if you let $q = P - 1$?



Wouldn't $P-1$ also be necessarily a new prime number? And if so, it and $P+1$ would be a set of twin primes.




So the proof would be:



Assume there are a finite number of twin primes such that $p_{n+1} - p_n = 2$.



Then, from the final set of twin primes, choose the larger of these two primes $p_{n+1}$. Calculate $S=p_1p_2...p_{n+1}$. So you now have a product of all primes up to $p_{n+1}$. Call this $S$. $S + 1$ is a prime number and so is $S - 1$. This is a new set of twin primes not in our original list, thus there cannot be a finite list of twin primes.



Of course, if $S - 1$ is not prime, then this falls apart.






proof-verification prime-numbers prime-twins







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
    $endgroup$
    – Noe Blassel
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    4 hours ago














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


Euclid's theorem states:




Consider any finite list of prime numbers $p_1, p_2, ..., p_n$. It will be shown that at least one additional prime number not in this list exists. Let $P$ be the product of all the prime numbers in the list: $P = p_1p_2...p_n$. Let $q = P + 1$. Then $q$ is either prime or not.



If $q$ is prime, then there is at least one more prime that is not in the list. If $q$ is not prime, then some prime factor $p$ divides $q$. If this factor $p$ were in our list, then it would divide $P$ (since $P$ is the product of every number in the list); but $p$ divides $P + 1 = q$. If $p$ divides $P$ and $q$, then $p$ would have to divide the difference of the two numbers, which is $(P + 1) − P$ or just $1$. Since no prime number divides $1$, $p$ cannot be on the list. This means that at least one more prime number exists beyond those in the list. This proves that for every finite list of prime numbers there is a prime number not in the list, and therefore there must be infinitely many prime numbers.





My question:



Does this theorem also hold if you let $q = P - 1$?



Wouldn't $P-1$ also be necessarily a new prime number? And if so, it and $P+1$ would be a set of twin primes.




So the proof would be:



Assume there are a finite number of twin primes such that $p_{n+1} - p_n = 2$.



Then, from the final set of twin primes, choose the larger of these two primes $p_{n+1}$. Calculate $S=p_1p_2...p_{n+1}$. So you now have a product of all primes up to $p_{n+1}$. Call this $S$. $S + 1$ is a prime number and so is $S - 1$. This is a new set of twin primes not in our original list, thus there cannot be a finite list of twin primes.



Of course, if $S - 1$ is not prime, then this falls apart.






proof-verification prime-numbers prime-twins







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Euclid's theorem states:




Consider any finite list of prime numbers $p_1, p_2, ..., p_n$. It will be shown that at least one additional prime number not in this list exists. Let $P$ be the product of all the prime numbers in the list: $P = p_1p_2...p_n$. Let $q = P + 1$. Then $q$ is either prime or not.



If $q$ is prime, then there is at least one more prime that is not in the list. If $q$ is not prime, then some prime factor $p$ divides $q$. If this factor $p$ were in our list, then it would divide $P$ (since $P$ is the product of every number in the list); but $p$ divides $P + 1 = q$. If $p$ divides $P$ and $q$, then $p$ would have to divide the difference of the two numbers, which is $(P + 1) − P$ or just $1$. Since no prime number divides $1$, $p$ cannot be on the list. This means that at least one more prime number exists beyond those in the list. This proves that for every finite list of prime numbers there is a prime number not in the list, and therefore there must be infinitely many prime numbers.





My question:



Does this theorem also hold if you let $q = P - 1$?



Wouldn't $P-1$ also be necessarily a new prime number? And if so, it and $P+1$ would be a set of twin primes.




So the proof would be:



Assume there are a finite number of twin primes such that $p_{n+1} - p_n = 2$.



Then, from the final set of twin primes, choose the larger of these two primes $p_{n+1}$. Calculate $S=p_1p_2...p_{n+1}$. So you now have a product of all primes up to $p_{n+1}$. Call this $S$. $S + 1$ is a prime number and so is $S - 1$. This is a new set of twin primes not in our original list, thus there cannot be a finite list of twin primes.



Of course, if $S - 1$ is not prime, then this falls apart.






proof-verification prime-numbers prime-twins




proof-verification prime-numbers prime-twins






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









David G. Stork

11.1k41432




11.1k41432






New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









Jeffrey ScottJeffrey Scott

161




161




New contributor




Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
    $endgroup$
    – Noe Blassel
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    4 hours ago














  • 6




    $begingroup$
    There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
    $endgroup$
    – Noe Blassel
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    4 hours ago








6




6




$begingroup$
There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
$endgroup$
– Noe Blassel
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
There’s absolutely no reason why S+1 or S-1 should be a prime number though, it merely has an unlisted prime factor.
$endgroup$
– Noe Blassel
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
By the way, take a look at the edits. It's a courtesy to other contributors to use MathJax to format your posts. If you're not familiar with it, it's not hard to learn -- I've been on this site for less than two months and it has become second nature.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

Remember, your original argument doesn't show that $P+1$ is itself prime. It shows that $P+1$ has a prime factor that you haven't already accounted for. So while you could make the same argument for $P-1$, you'd also reach the same conclusion, not that $P-1$ is itself necessarily prime, but only that it has some prime factor not in your original list. So that's of no help in proving the Twin Prime Conjecture.



Similarly, you don't know that $S+1$ or $S-1$ is prime. You just know that they have prime factors that aren't on your original list of twin primes, but that doesn't help you.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Scott
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3149966%2ferror-in-twin-prime-conjecture%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









7












$begingroup$

Remember, your original argument doesn't show that $P+1$ is itself prime. It shows that $P+1$ has a prime factor that you haven't already accounted for. So while you could make the same argument for $P-1$, you'd also reach the same conclusion, not that $P-1$ is itself necessarily prime, but only that it has some prime factor not in your original list. So that's of no help in proving the Twin Prime Conjecture.



Similarly, you don't know that $S+1$ or $S-1$ is prime. You just know that they have prime factors that aren't on your original list of twin primes, but that doesn't help you.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Scott
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago
















7












$begingroup$

Remember, your original argument doesn't show that $P+1$ is itself prime. It shows that $P+1$ has a prime factor that you haven't already accounted for. So while you could make the same argument for $P-1$, you'd also reach the same conclusion, not that $P-1$ is itself necessarily prime, but only that it has some prime factor not in your original list. So that's of no help in proving the Twin Prime Conjecture.



Similarly, you don't know that $S+1$ or $S-1$ is prime. You just know that they have prime factors that aren't on your original list of twin primes, but that doesn't help you.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Scott
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago














7












7








7





$begingroup$

Remember, your original argument doesn't show that $P+1$ is itself prime. It shows that $P+1$ has a prime factor that you haven't already accounted for. So while you could make the same argument for $P-1$, you'd also reach the same conclusion, not that $P-1$ is itself necessarily prime, but only that it has some prime factor not in your original list. So that's of no help in proving the Twin Prime Conjecture.



Similarly, you don't know that $S+1$ or $S-1$ is prime. You just know that they have prime factors that aren't on your original list of twin primes, but that doesn't help you.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Remember, your original argument doesn't show that $P+1$ is itself prime. It shows that $P+1$ has a prime factor that you haven't already accounted for. So while you could make the same argument for $P-1$, you'd also reach the same conclusion, not that $P-1$ is itself necessarily prime, but only that it has some prime factor not in your original list. So that's of no help in proving the Twin Prime Conjecture.



Similarly, you don't know that $S+1$ or $S-1$ is prime. You just know that they have prime factors that aren't on your original list of twin primes, but that doesn't help you.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









Robert ShoreRobert Shore

2,980219




2,980219








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Scott
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeffrey Scott
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Shore
    3 hours ago








3




3




$begingroup$
Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
$endgroup$
– Jeffrey Scott
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Ah you're right. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210. But 209 is not prime.
$endgroup$
– Jeffrey Scott
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Glad I could help. Acceptances of answers that you find useful are always welcome.
$endgroup$
– Robert Shore
3 hours ago










Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Jeffrey Scott is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3149966%2ferror-in-twin-prime-conjecture%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Loup dans la culture

Image
Loups sur une enluminure du Bestiaire d'Aberdeen Le loup est l'animal le plus emblématique de l'histoire de l'Eurasie, il était à l'honneur durant l'Antiquité chez la totalité des anciens peuples européens [ 1 ] . Sommaire 1 Le loup dans la mythologie 2 Les loups dans le folklore 2.1 L'évolution des mentalités 2.2 Le loup dans la psychanalyse 3 Le loup dans les œuvres culturelles 3.1 Le loup dans la littérature 3.1.1 Fables 3.1.2 Poésie 3.1.3 Romans 3.1.4 Littérature jeunesse 3.1.4.1 Quelques titres d'albums contemporains 3.1.5 Bande dessinée 3.2 Le loup à l'écran 3.2.1 Le cinéma et la télévision 3.2.2 Documentaires 3.2.3 Dessins animés 3.2.4 Jeux vidéo 3.3 Le loup en peinture et en sculpture 3.4 Le loup dans les œuvres musicales 4 Le loup et les noms propres 5 Bibliographie 6 Notes et références 7 Voir aussi 7.1 Articles connexes ...
Read more

How to solve the problem of ntp “Unable to contact time server” from KDE?

Image
1 0 I want to set date and time automatically but this error appears when I try to .. I'm using openSUSE, I tried different servers but it didn't work either, help please! It doesn't seem to be a network problem: $ ping pool.ntp.org 64 bytes from 41.78.128.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=41 time=260 ms To the question of whether ntpd is installed and running: $ ps -C ntpd PID TTY TIME CMD i.e. there's no ntpd process running. $ rpm -qa | grep ntp yast2-ntp-client-3.1.12-1.7.noarch ntp-4.2.6p5-25.2.1.i586 Further information from the comments: $ sudo ntpdate pool.ntp.org 25 Sep 19:41:51 ntpdate[3162]: no server suitable for synchronization found networking kde opensuse ntp ntpd sh...
Read more

ASUS Zenbook UX433/UX333 — Configure Touchpad-embedded numpad on Linux

Image
0 1 I have an ASUS Zenbook UX433,on which ASUS decided to innovate by embedding a Numpad inside the touchpad (see picture 1). Toggling between classic touchpad mode and numpad (also turns the touchpad LEDs on) can be done through the golden button in the top-right corner of the touchpad. However, on my Manjaro arch Linux config, this behavior does not work by default and I can only use the touchpad, no numpad. Has anyone been able to configure the numpad to work on Linux, or have any idea how this could be achieved? EDIT1: I have had a look at the official Windows drivers for the UX433FA TouchPad, but was not able to make anything of it. I tried installing them on Linux using tools like NDISWrapper, but they do not detect the TouchPad/Numpad hardware, and my understanding of drivers is too limited. ...
Read more