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

Taking my notation from a previous question

Define a function $P_6$ as $$P_6(n)=\begin{cases} 0, \ \ 6n-1 \not\in \mathbb P \wedge 6n+1 \not\in \mathbb P \\ 1, \ \ (6n-1 \not\in \mathbb P \wedge 6n+1 \in \mathbb P) \vee (6n-1 \not\in \mathbb P \wedge 6n+1 \in \mathbb P)\\ 2, \ \ 6n-1 \in \mathbb P \wedge 6n+1 \in \mathbb P \end{cases}$$

So $P_6(n)$ has value $0$ if neither of the numbers around $6n$ is a prime, $1$ if either but not both are primes and $2$ is both are.

Let sets $P_6^0,P_6^1,P_6^2$ be the corresponding sets of indexes where $P_6 = 0,1 \vee 2$, so, for example, $\forall n\in P_6^1, P_6(n) = 1$

Define three new functions using the indicator functions of above sets:

\begin{cases} \pi_{6\bullet}^0 (n) = \sum_{i=1}^n 1_{P_6^0}(i) \\ \pi_{6\bullet}^1 (n) = \sum_{i=1}^n 1_{P_6^1}(i) \\ \pi_{6\bullet}^2 (n) = \sum_{i=1}^n 1_{P_6^2}(i) \end{cases}

So these functions tell how many such indexes $1 \leq s \leq n$ there are for whom the number of primes surrounding $6s$ is $i$, $i \in \{0,1,2\}$.

These functions have following relations: \begin{equation} \pi_{6\bullet}^0 (n)+\pi_{6\bullet}^1 (n)+\pi_{6\bullet}^2 (n) = n \ \ \ \ \ (1) \end{equation} and \begin{equation} \pi(6n+1)-2 = \pi_{6\bullet}^1 (n)+2 \pi_{6\bullet}^2 (n) \ \ \ \ \ (2). \end{equation}

Here $\pi(n)$ is the prime counting function and it has argument $6n+1$ because the biggest number we test is indeed $6n+1$ and we have to remove $2$ because the first two primes are not reachable via number six.

Now we get from (1): $$\pi_{6\bullet}^1 (n) = n-\pi_{6\bullet}^0 (n)-\pi_{6\bullet}^2 (n)$$

and inserting this to (2), we get: $$\pi(6n+1)+\pi_{6\bullet}^0 (n)=n+2+\pi_{6\bullet}^2 (n) \ \ \ (3).$$

Assume there is finite number of twin prime pairs, let this number be $M$ and let the last of these be of the form $6S \pm 1$.

Now (3) can, after index $S$, be written as $$\pi(6(k+S)+1)+\pi_{6\bullet}^0(k+S)=k+S+2+M \ \ \ \ (4)$$

ie. for all numbers $k\geq 0$ the sum of all primes smaller or equal to $6k+6S+1$ plus the number of numbers divisible by six between $6$ and $6k+6S$ which have no primes within distance 1 of them, can be expressed as linear function of k.

Now, an upper bound for $\pi_{6\bullet}^0 (n)$ is $n$. This is simply assumption that there are no primes. Inserting this into (4) gets us $M < \pi(6(k+S)+1)-2.$

Then a lower bound for $\pi_{6\bullet}^0 (n)$. The number of numbers between $5$ and $6n+1$ divisible by 6 is $n$. So we could estimate $\pi_{6\bullet}^0 (n) > n - \pi(6n+1)$, ie. there are no twin primes. This is always true, but it is too small, for inserting this to (4) gives us $M>-2$, which is useless.

Much better would be to assume that every prime is a part of a twin prime, so we could estimate $\pi_{6\bullet}^0 (n) > n - \frac{\pi(6n+1)}{2}.$ This is, however, not true, especially after $S$.

Assume that there exists a number $\alpha,$ such that $\pi_{6\bullet}^0 (n) > n - \frac{\pi(6n+1)}{\alpha}.$ Inserting this into (4) gives us $M > (1-\frac{1}{\alpha}) \pi(6(k+S)+1)-2$. This means that as long as $\alpha > 1$, there is no such constant $M$.

Is there some way to justify that there can be such an $\alpha>1$?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

By Brun's theorem, $$ \pi_{6\bullet}^2(n)=O\left(\frac{n(\log\log n)^2}{(\log n)^2}\right) $$ so together with the Prime Number Theorem in the form $$ \pi(n)=\frac{n}{\log n}+O\left(\frac{n}{(\log n)^2}\right) $$ we can conclude that $$ \pi_{6\bullet}^1(n)=\frac{6n}{\log 6n}+O\left(\frac{n(\log\log n)^2}{(\log n)^2}\right) $$ and $$ \pi_{6\bullet}^0(n)=n-\frac{6n}{\log 6n}+O\left(\frac{n(\log\log n)^2}{(\log n)^2}\right). $$

Therefore, $$ \pi_{6\bullet}^0(n)=n-\frac{\pi(6n+1)}{1}+O\left(\frac{n(\log\log n)^2}{(\log n)^2}\right) $$ and any choice of $\alpha>1$ gives the wrong asymptotic. So no, this approach cannot be used to prove the Twin Prime Theorem.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.