Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Can anyone prove or disprove the following statement?

$$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{p_{n+1} - p_{n}}{\sqrt{p_n}} = 0.$$

share|improve this question
14  
I'm guessing $p_n$ is meant to the be $n$th prime? Ideally, one should not be forced to guess, though, and the government doesn't like it when I read minds without a warrant. –  Arturo Magidin Jul 23 '12 at 0:38
1  
Partial results are available at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap#Further_results. –  sdcvvc Jul 23 '12 at 1:01
add comment

3 Answers

At present, no one can prove or disprove this statement. It is very famous and still open. The best unconditional result is Baker-Harman-Pintz:

$$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{p_{n+1} - p_{n}}{p_n^{0.525}} < \infty.$$

Quite likely it can be shown that this limit is exactly $0$, but I haven't read enough of the paper to be certain.

share|improve this answer
4  
The limit is $0$ if you change the exponent to $0.526$ –  Will Jagy Jul 23 '12 at 1:09
add comment

I don't think anyone knows, although I am looking up stuff just in case. Meanwhile, what people suspect is the Cramer-Granville conjecture, $$ \lim \sup \frac{p_{n+1}-p_n}{\left( \log p_n \right)^2} = 2 e^{- \gamma} = 1.1229\ldots, $$ where the logarithm is to base $e = 2.718281828459\ldots$ and $\gamma = 0.5772156649\ldots$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. This conjecture, and the Baker result mentioned in the other answer, are in GRANVILLE PDF and WookiePedia. Hmmm, not quite, Granville mentions the earlier $0.535$ result of Baker and Harman. With Pintz they later got it to $0.525.$

This is consistent with a (mostly) stronger conjecture that I made up for no good reason except that it also applies to small numbers, $$ p_{n+1} \, - \, p_n < \; 3 \; \log^2 \, p_n. $$ For example, $$p_1 = 2,\; \log 2 = 0.693147\ldots, \log^2 \, 2 = (0.693147\ldots)^2 = 0.480453\ldots, \; 3 \,\log^2 \, 2 = 1.441359\ldots, $$ and $$ 2 + 1.441359\ldots > 3 = p_2. $$

share|improve this answer
    
Was "WookiePedia" intentional? –  Potato Jul 23 '12 at 2:17
2  
@Potato, such a good feeling to have my work noticed. I work so hard for my fans. Also for everyone else. –  Will Jagy Jul 23 '12 at 2:20
add comment

This is not known even under the Riemann hypothesis, which gives only $$ \frac{p_{n+1}-p_n}{\sqrt{p_n}\log p_n}<\infty. $$

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.