7
$\begingroup$

I studied this site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap

and wondered if the smallest prime gap greater than $2000$ can still be determined, in other words :

Which is the smallest prime $p$, such that $q-p>2000$, where $p$ and $q$ are consecutive primes ?

Clearly, $1.4\times 10^{18}$ is a lower bound for $p$, as the calculated prime gaps show.

I tried to estimate the magnitude of the smallest prime gap with difference $2002$, but the useful estimations refer to the definition $g_n=p_{n+1}-p_n$. I did not manage to estimate the desired result with the given estimates for $g_n$ and I think they are far too big.

An example with $61$ digits is $$p=149\# \times 1290 \ + \ 8849$$

s=prod(j=1,35,prime(j))*1290+8849;t=nextprime(s+1);print(isprime(s,2),"   ",is
prime(t,2),"    ",t-s,"    ",truncate(log(s)/log(10)+1))
1   1    2042    61
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think that your previous question deserves to be linked here, so I just added it :-) $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 23 '15 at 19:27
  • $\begingroup$ The numbers seem to be large, for 220 the smallest primes are 122164747 and 122164969. I can't get past this :( $\endgroup$ – Jorge Fernández Hidalgo Aug 23 '15 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm i think this is too close to questions like p-q = 2. So i think this Cannot be estimated or calculated efficiently. Let me know if im wrong plz !! $\endgroup$ – mick Aug 23 '15 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a particular reason you care about this, or is this just a tedious exercise? There is no known pattern for the "least" such gap. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Aug 23 '15 at 19:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The minimum is 4e18 rather than 1.4e18, as TOeS has exhaustively tested to that limit without finding anything. For some smaller examples, though much larger than a minimum: PRP47 629363*107#/30-1304. Much smaller is the 30 digit 631317731251295254677161237269 which is the smallest currently known gap start with length > 2000. Its merit is under 30, so we ought to be able to find something smaller. $\endgroup$ – DanaJ Aug 24 '15 at 6:47
4
$\begingroup$

I would like to ammend my previous (edited) estimate to a more conservative one: betwen $1.97\times 10^{19}$ and $7.02\times 10^{22},$ with the most likely value being close to $1.18\times 10^{21},$ based purely on data from @dREaM's link (or equivalently this one), but this is highly speculative. Speculation based on following observations:

cc={{0,2},{1,3},{3,7},{5,23},{7,89},{13,113},{17,523},{19,887},{21,1129},{33,1327},{35,9551},{43,15683},{51,19609},{71,31397},{85,155921},{95,360653},{111,370261},{113,492113},{117,1349533},{131,1357201},{147,2010733},{153,4652353},{179,17051707},{209,20831323},{219,47326693},{221,122164747},{233,189695659},{247,191912783},{249,387096133},{281,436273009},{287,1294268491},{291,1453168141},{319,2300942549},{335,3842610773},{353,4302407359},{381,10726904659},{383,20678048297},{393,22367084959},{455,25056082087},{463,42652618343},{467,127976334671},{473,182226896239},{485,241160624143},{489,297501075799},{499,303371455241},{513,304599508537},{515,416608695821},{531,461690510011},{533,614487453523},{539,738832927927},{581,1346294310749},{587,1408695493609},{601,1968188556461},{651,2614941710599},{673,7177162611713},{715,13829048559701},{765,19581334192423},{777,42842283925351},{803,90874329411493},{805,171231342420521},{905,218209405436543},{915,1189459969825483},{923,1686994940955803},{1131,1693182318746371},{1183,43841547845541059},{1197,55350776431903243},{1219,80873624627234849},{1223,203986478517455989},{1247,218034721194214273},{1271,305405826521087869},{1327,352521223451364323},{1355,401429925999153707},{1369,418032645936712127},{1441,804212830686677669},{1475,1425172824437699411}}

With[{c = 4}, ListLinePlot[{(Sqrt@# & /@ (Transpose@cc)[[1]]), -Log[ 
Log[RiemannR@N[#] - Sqrt@#]/#] & /@ ((Transpose@cc)[[2]]), (#/
2 + c & /@ Range@(2 Sqrt@2000)), (#/2 - c & /@ Range@(2 Sqrt@2000)), (#/2 
& /@ Range@(2 Sqrt@2000))}, FillingStyle -> {Directive[{Opacity[.25], 
ColorData[97, "ColorList"][[1]]}]} , PlotStyle -> {{}, {}, {Opacity[0]}, 
{Opacity[0]}, {Darker@Blue, Thin, Dashed}}, Filling -> {3 -> {4}}, 
Frame -> True, PlotRange -> {{Automatic, Automatic}, {0, Automatic}}]]

enter image description here

x /. With[{c = 4}, Table[FindRoot[-Log[Log[-Sqrt@x + RiemannR@N[x]]/
    x] == (#/2 + cc &@(2 Sqrt@2000)), {x, 1000}], {cc, {-c, 0, c}}]]

(*{1.96873*10^19, 1.18074*10^21, 7.02452*10^22}*)

This is of course a huge search area, but is as speculatively tight as possible, I think, given the data known to date. I should be fairly surprised if the value lies significantly outside of these bounds. If you find anything, I should be interested in the results you achieve. Anyway, should give you fairly reasonable bounds in which to search.

Update

In responsse to @DanaJ's comment below, for proven first occurrances, of course uyou will have to start the search at $4\times10^{18},$ since that is the current exhaustive search limit. The upper bound is then $\approx 8.247\times 10^{32}$ see here.

However, I am cannot find any reason to suggest that the merit will be as low as $\approx 35,$ despite current max merits known. Plotting the value of increasing merits for first known occurrances:

enter image description here

ListLinePlot[{Transpose@{Sqrt@cc[[All, 1]], 
N[#[[1]]/Log@#[[2]]] & /@ cc}, # - Sqrt@# & /@ Range@Sqrt@2000, # & /@ 
Range@Sqrt@2000, # - (Sqrt@#)/2 & /@ Range@Sqrt@2000}, 
FillingStyle -> {Directive[{Opacity[.25], 
ColorData[97, "ColorList"][[1]]}]}, PlotStyle -> 
{{Darker@ColorData[97, "ColorList"][[1]]}, {Opacity[0]}, 
{Opacity[0]}, {Darker@Blue, Thin, Dashed}, {Opacity[0]}}, 
Filling -> {3 -> {4}, 2 -> {4}}, Frame -> True]

shows very clear statistical trends which suggest that the merit at $g_n\geq 2000$ yields similar estimated bounds as given in first part of answer, but using completely different methods, with the following merit min, expected & max estimates:

N@{# - Sqrt@# &@Sqrt@2000, # - Sqrt@#/2 &@Sqrt@2000, # &@Sqrt@2000}
(*{38.034, 41.3777, 44.7214}*)

giving estimated prime ranges of

Flatten[x /. NSolve[2000/Log[x] == #, x] & /@ Reverse@{# - Sqrt@# 
&@Sqrt@2000, # - Sqrt@#/2 &@Sqrt@2000, # &@ Sqrt@2000}]

(*{2.64387*10^19, 9.81156*10^20, 6.8738*10^22}*)

which are in clear agreement with initial estimates.

Of course, one could be a little more conservative with these estimates, going for something like

Flatten[x /. NSolve[2000/Log[x] == #, x] & /@ Reverse@{# - (Sqrt@# + 
Log@Log@#) &@ Sqrt@2000, # - (Sqrt@# + Log@Log@#/4)/2 &@
Sqrt@2000, # + Log@Log@# &@Sqrt@2000}] 

(*{7.23125*10^18, 1.19329*10^21, 4.65612*10^23}*)

but I almost certainly don't think it is necessary to go as high as $6.9\times 10^{24}.$ Only time will tell, of course, and the rate at reaseach in this area and the technology to support it are going, I shouldn't think we will have too long to wait before we get a definitive answer to your question :)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is great, but a problem with the lower limit is that unless you can prove the gap start must be higher than that number, you need to start at 4e18 (the current limit of exhaustive search) or you would just have a first known occurrence gap rather than a true first occurrence. Your lower limit gives a merit of 45.06, while your high limit has a merit of 38.06. Those are some really high merits. 35 merits would be about 6.9 x 10^24. $\endgroup$ – DanaJ Aug 24 '15 at 7:03
  • $\begingroup$ @DanaJ please see update. $\endgroup$ – martin Aug 25 '15 at 20:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Great stuff @martin. Thanks for this analysis! I agree that there doesn't seem to be any reason those merits aren't possible -- mostly it's just a wow reaction to how hard they are to find. $\endgroup$ – DanaJ Aug 25 '15 at 21:49
  • $\begingroup$ @DanaJ I noticed your name on the tables BTW - well done - that is some achievement! :) Great answer here too (+1) - trying to impliment your suggestions in Mathematica, but am only at v basic stages so far! ;) $\endgroup$ – martin Aug 25 '15 at 21:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DanaJ The maximum merit up to $n$ is conjectured to grow like $\log n$, which is essentially Cramér's conjecture, so there is heuristic reason to believe it will be closer to $40$. It is actually known to diverge to infinity, albeit pretty slowly (the first result is due to Westzynthius in 1931, but there has been a burst of recent activity in this area). $\endgroup$ – Erick Wong Aug 25 '15 at 22:10
2
$\begingroup$

It doesn't go all the way to 2000 but it addresses your problem. Apparently it is hard to do it exhaustively. It has only been done for primes under $10^{18}$ and the gap they found is $1476$

http://primerecords.dk/primegaps/maximal.htm

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Using my conjecture A Conjecture Sharper than Cramér's and Firoozbakht's $g_n<(p_n/n)^2 < (\log{(p_n)-1})^2$ and just solving with $g_n = 2000$ we get $\exp{(\sqrt{g_n}+1)} < p_n = 7.187 * 10^{19}$. For $g_n = 2100$ we get $p_n = 2.168 * 10^{20}$.So, if it happen later than this I will be shocked because of it proving a failure to the conjecture with a very small prime.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

According to Wolf's conjecture, the first occurrence of prime gap $g$ is somewhere near the prime $p$ given by $$ p \approx \sqrt{g}\exp(\sqrt{g}). $$ (This is equation $(67)$ in Wolf's paper arXiv:1102.0481.)

Substituting the prime gap size $g=2000$, we could expect to see such a gap near $$ p \approx \sqrt{2000}\exp(\sqrt{2000}) \approx 1.18\cdot10^{21}. $$

$\endgroup$

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.