Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

If the set of primes $p$ such that $p+2$ is also prime is infinite, would this imply that the set of primes such that $p+2n$ where $n$ is any positive integer for each pair is also infinite?

share|cite|improve this question
Is $n$ a fixed positive integer? – Calvin Lin Jan 22 '13 at 7:01
do you mean "the set of numbers $p$ such that $p$ and $p+2$ are prime is infinite"? – Trevor Wilson Jan 22 '13 at 7:02
I do not think there is any known relationship between the question of whether there are infinitely many pairs $(n,n+2)$ of primes and the question of whether there are infinitely many pairs $(n,n+4)$ of primes. – André Nicolas Jan 22 '13 at 7:05
Also, nothing of this type has been proved; see – Will Jagy Jan 22 '13 at 7:07
@AndréNicolas, My question is if there are infinitely many primes with difference $2$, Is there a solid relation between that conjecture and the conjecture that there are infinitely many with difference $4,6,8,10,...$? And the same if there are finite. I'm having trouble wording the question and would really appreciate it if you edited the question if you understood me, thanks. – Babiker Jan 22 '13 at 7:27

This could be. It could be that a proof that there are infinitely many primes p and p+2 would imply the proof that there are infinetely many primes p and p+2n for all n = 1,2,3,4,... This is also called sometimes Polignac conjecture.

share|cite|improve this answer

So far as I know, no one has ever proved anything along the lines of, "If there are infinitely many pairs of primes differing by $2$, then there are infinitely many pairs of primes differing by $4$."

On the other hand, I don't see what's so special about $2$ (in this context), and I bet that if the day comes when someone produces a proof for $2$, the techniques of that proof will also work for $2n$ generally.

share|cite|improve this answer
I think it is safer to bet on $2^n$ instead of $2n$. Based on Hardy-Littlewood. – mick Sep 4 '13 at 20:22

I might be being stupid but surely no large enough twin prime pair (p,p+2) gives a prime pair of difference $4$.

So even if there were infinitely many twin primes, this would tell us nothing about the quantity of difference $4$ primes.

share|cite|improve this answer
A priori, anyways. In principle, a proof of the twin prime conjecture could imply results that would also tell us things about the more general case. – Hurkyl Jan 22 '13 at 12:02
Yes, but the question asks whether the result itself implies the more general result. – fretty Jan 22 '13 at 12:04
I think you're missing the point, fretty. True, if $p$ and $p+2$ are both prime, then $p+4$ isn't --- but maybe $2p+1$ and $2p+5$ are both prime. Maybe there is a proof that for .0001 percent of the primes $p$ for which $p+2$ is prime, $2p+1$ and $2p+5$ are both prime. I'm sure no such proof exists now --- are you sure no such proof ever will exist? – Gerry Myerson Jan 22 '13 at 12:04
Oh I see the point now, I was getting confused with the use of $p$ twice in the question. – fretty Jan 22 '13 at 12:41

Your Answer


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.