Sign up ×
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.

Given a number $n\ge 3$, then one of these is true: \begin{equation} \begin{cases}2n = (6m-1)+P, \ \ \ P \in \mathbb P, \ 6m-1 \in \mathbb P, \ 6m+1 \in \mathbb P \ \ \ \ (1) \\ 2n-1 \in \mathbb P, \ 2n-1 = P + 6k,\ 6k+1 \in \mathbb P \ \ \ \ (2) \end{cases} \end{equation}

In other words, any even number $2n$ greater than $4$ can be written either as a sum of a prime and another prime which is lower of a pair of twin primes or, if this cannot be done, then $2n-1$ is a prime and it can be written as a sum of a prime and a number divisible by six which is one smaller than a prime.

My justification for this is the Goldbach's conjecture.

Assume every even number greater than $2$ can be written as a sum of two primes. Then list every possible way to write $2n+2$ as sum of two primes: $h = \{P_1+P_2,P_3+P4... \}$

Now $2n = 2n-2$. Then $2n$ can be written as a sum of two primes as well, so there must be either some $P_n$ which is a component of some sum in $h$, for which $P_n-2 \in \mathbb P$ or, if no such prime exists, but we have to get the primes for $2n$ from somewhere, so some $P_n$ must be 3 and if $2n+2=3+P_s$, $2n = 1+P_s$ and $P_s$ can be expressed as a sum of a prime and a number $N$, such that $N+1 \in \mathbb P.$

Assume then that what I stated at the beginning is true. Then $2n$ can be written in one of the two forms and thus $2n+2$ is automatically a sum of two primes.

The other form is necessary, take as an example the smallest number for which the $(1)$ fails: $$38 = 19+19 = 7+31 = 37+1. $$ None of these is a lower of a twin prime pair, but $37$ is a prime and $37 = 31 + 6$ and $6 +1 = 7$ is a prime.

share|cite|improve this question
How can $2n=6n-1+P$? Do you mean a different variable, like $2n=6m-1+P$? – Thomas Andrews Nov 26 '13 at 1:18
@ThomasAndrews yes, different variable. Will fix. – Valtteri Nov 26 '13 at 1:47
@Valtteri: A clear equivalence, I see very nice is: "All $n>3$ is equidistant from two primes". Why it is not stated ever so? – Ataulfo Jul 12 at 1:43

1 Answer 1

Your condition fails for the number 122.

$122 = 61 + 61 = 43 + 79 = 19 + 103 = 13 + 109$, and none of these are the lower of a twin prime pair. But, $121$ is not a prime, so your condition fails.

Please excuse my lack of formatting; I'm new to this.

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.