1
$\begingroup$

The twin prime conjecture states basically that it is possible to find two primes $p$, $p+2$ at a distance $2$ that are as big as wanted (Wikipedia).

I am learning about the basic properties associated to the distance of every $n \in \Bbb N$ to the next closest non-adjacent coprime ("non-adjacent" means that the distance to the coprime is the minimum possible strictly greater than 1, that distance is exactly the smallest prime number that does not divide $n$, here is a question about it) and I wonder if the following expression could be a valid way of expressing the twin prime conjecture by using the distance to the next non-adjacent coprime as the base of the expression, as follows:

Def:

$\ T=\{(n,n+2)\ (even)\ /\ \exists\ p,p+2 \in \Bbb P\ /\ (n,p)=1 \land (n+2,p+2)=1 \land (p-n)\gt 1\ \land \not\exists k\ /\ k\lt p\ \land (n,k)=1 \land (k-n)\gt1\}$

So the twin prime conjecture would be true only if the cardinality $\mid T\mid = \infty$

E.g.:

$n=38, n+2=40$, the next non-adjacent coprime to $n$ is $p=41$, and to $n+2$ is $p+2=43$, so $(38,40) \in T$

$T$ would be the set of pairs of even numbers $(n,n+2)$ whose closest non-adjacent coprimes are the pair $(p,p+2)$ being $p$ and $p+2$ twin primes. So only if the cardinality of that set is infinite, the conjecture is true.

Would the above expression be a valid equivalent way of defining the twin prime conjecture? If not, is it possible to fix it?

Thank you!

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

yes, i think they are equivalent.

If there are infinitely many twin primes, then for each $p,p+2$ we can find $n,n+2$ (just take $n=p-3$)such that your condition is satisfied, so $|T| = \infty$.

Conversely, if $T$ is infinite, then for each $(n,n+2) \in T$ there is a pair of primes $p,p+2$ which is greater than $n$. So there are infinitely many of them.

i hope i did not misunderstood your question

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ thank you for the review! Yes you express the same as I wrote in the question. I wanted to write the definition of the conjecture in terms of the cardinality of a set. $\endgroup$ – iadvd Jul 29 '15 at 7:40
0
$\begingroup$

This is a clarification of the question, too long for a comment. I intend to turn this into an answer once I determine what the question is.

I believe your question is whether C is equivalent to the existence of infinitely many twin primes, where C is the statement

There are infinitely many pairs $(n,p)$ such that:

  1. $p$ and $p+2$ are prime,
  2. $\gcd(2n,p)=1=\gcd(2n+2,p+2)$,
  3. $p>2n+1$, and
  4. There is no $2n+1<k<p$ with $\gcd(2n,k)=1$.

I wonder if you've left out the condition $\gcd(2n,k+2)=1$ intentionally from #4?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ hi, thank you for your review! yes my expression is the same one you wrote. Sorry about your last question... would it be gcd(2n,k+2)=1 as you wrote or gcd(2n+2,k+2)=1? if it is gcd(2n+2,k+2)=1 then I left it out on purpose because it is implied in the definition of $2n$ and $2n+2$ and in the condition #4 applied to $2n$. $\endgroup$ – iadvd Jun 19 '15 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ hi, did my comment above answered your questions? please let me know if I can do something else :) $\endgroup$ – iadvd Jun 28 '15 at 13:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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