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.

Whether I am correct or wrong I don't know. If there are any corrections, please let me know.

Let $p_n$ = product of all primes. (of course we can go still beyond as we know $p_n$ is infinite). Now consider $M = p_n + 1$ and $N = p_n - 1$. As we know that, by Euclid theorem, no prime of $p_n$ will divide $M$ as it leaves remainder $1$. So, $M$ is prime. At this same time, no prime of $p_n$ can divide $N$ as it leaves the remainder $1$. So, $N$ must be prime. Now, $M - N = (p_n +1 ) - (p_n -1) = 2$, i.e. $(M, N)$ is prime pair with difference 2. So, if we extend primes still we can see the difference 2. So twin primes are not finite.

share|improve this question
2  
Good idea. To be precise, let $Q_n$ be the product of all primes that are less than or equal to the $n$-th prime $p_n$. Then $Q_n+1$ is not divisible by any prime $\le p_n$. That does not mean that $Q_n+1$ is prime. The same consideration holds for $Q_n-1$. –  André Nicolas Dec 18 '11 at 6:28
2  
I hope you don't take offense, but one can tell without even reading it that this argument is wrong. That's fine! This is a very hard problem. I think you mean for $p_n$ to be the product of the first $n$ primes. Then, as in Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, you form $p_n + 1$. This is not divisible by the first $n$ primes for the reason you give, but why do you think it must be prime? For example, $p_6 + 1 = 59\cdot 509$. –  Dylan Moreland Dec 18 '11 at 6:33
1  
A minor nitpick (which doesn't affect your argument): when you divide $N$ by one of the first $n$ primes, you get a remainder of $-1$. –  Dylan Moreland Dec 18 '11 at 6:42
1  
Welcome to MSE. By the way, this might interest: you en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brun%27s_constant that is $\sum_\text{twinprimes} 1/p$ converges which is not the case for $\sum_\text{primes} 1/p$. –  AD. Dec 18 '11 at 6:45
    
Thank you very much for all members, who showed my errors. Thanks again. –  mahi Dec 18 '11 at 15:24
show 2 more comments

2 Answers

(I will use the notation $p_n=$ the $n$th prime number, not $p_n=$ product of the first $n$ prime numbers as the OP is using.)

Your argument is incorrect, since neither $M=(p_1\cdots p_n)+1$ nor $N=(p_1\cdots p_n)-1$ have to be prime. All you know is that $M$ and $N$ are not divisible by the primes $p_1,\ldots,p_n$.

For some specific examples:

$$(2\cdot 3\cdot 5\cdot 7\cdot 11\cdot 13)+1=30031=59\cdot 509$$ $$(2\cdot 3\cdot 5\cdot 7)-1=209=11\cdot 19$$

As you can see, $209$ is not divisible by any of $2,3,5,7$, and $30031$ is not divisible by any of $2,3,5,7,11,13$, but this has not prevented them from being divisible by other primes, and hence composite.

See also the discussions here and here.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you so much for your comment on my proof. I understand that, where I am wrong. –  mahi Dec 18 '11 at 15:23
add comment

The flaw in your proof lies with your assumption $M=p_n+1$ is a prime, which is not. The proof of actually only uses the fact that there is a prime dividing this product.

Or other wise you might have been talking about Primorial primes .

Thank you

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.