# Goldbach's conjecture and number of ways in which an even number can be expressed as a sum of two primes

Is there a functon that counts the number of ways in which an even number can be expressed as a sum of two primes?

• there is one, you just defined it... – Xoff Aug 7 '12 at 12:55

See Goldbach's comet at Wikipedia.

EDIT: To expand on this a little, let $g(n)$ be the number of ways of expressing the even number $n$ as a sum of two primes. Wikipedia gives a heuristic argument for $g(n)$ to be approximately $2n/(\log n)^2$ for large $n$. Then it points out a flaw with the heuristic, and explains how Hardy and Littlewood repaired the flaw to come up with a better conjecture. The better conjecture states that, for large $n$, $g(n)$ is approximately $cn/(\log n)^2$, where $c>0$ depends on the primes dividing $n$. In all cases, $c>1.32$.

I stress that this is all conjectural, as no one has been able to prove even that $g(n)>0$ for all even $n\ge4$.

Yes, there is such a function and it has been studied for at least a century. See Sloane's A002375. But it doesn't have a set letter specified for it. Here I will use $g$. So, for example, $g(36) = 4$, $g(38) = 2$. (If you're looking in Sloane's, be sure to divide by 2 before looking up). There is also a function which requires the primes to be distinct, so $31 + 7 = 38$ counts but $19 + 19$ does not; that has also been studied for at least a century.

Now, is there a formula that you can plug in an even number $2n$ and have it give you an answer without knowing the primes up to $n$? I think that if the Riemann hypothesis is proven, it could lead to such a formula. As a quick and dirty estimate, I suggest $g(2n) \approx \frac{n}{8}$; your mileage may vary.

EDIT: Gerry Myerson rightly pointed out that $g(2n) < \pi(n)$, and that my quick and dirty estimate is quite inadequate for large numbers. From his comment, I revise my quick and dirty estimate to $g(2n) \approx \frac{n}{4 \log n}$. The point that I was getting at is that Bertrand's postulate tells us there is always at least one prime between $n$ and $2n$, and it seems unlikely to me that each and every prime in that interval would fail to "match" to a prime between 1 and $n$.

• Your $g(n)$ is clearly no bigger than the number of primes up to $2n$. For $n$ large, the number of primes less than $2n$ is roughly $2n/\log n$, which is much smaller than $n/8$. So the "quick and dirty" estimate can't be much good, once $n$ is large enough. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the Riemann Hypothesis has nothing to do with it. – Gerry Myerson Dec 21 '14 at 19:49
• Mostly good points. As for the Riemann hypothesis, that's just speculation on my part. – Robert Soupe Dec 21 '14 at 21:10
• The Prime Number Theorem tells us much more than Bertrand's Postulate; instead of one prime between $n$ and $2n$, there are asymptotically $n/\log n$ of them. And a careful consideration of the likelihood of matchups with primes between $1$ and $n$ leads to an estimate of $cn/(\log n)^2$ for $g(n)$, for a certain constant $c$. Have a look at the Wikipedia essay on the Goldbach conjecture. – Gerry Myerson Dec 22 '14 at 8:15
• You guys, you're basically in agreement on the essential point here: as $n$ gets larger, so does the number of potential Goldbach sums. A quick and dirty estimate is just that, and not a tight upper or lower bound. But Gerry, I think you'd do well to post your own answer. Another way of saying the same thing is that a Goldbach failure number is probably less likely to exist than an odd perfect number. – Lisa Dec 22 '14 at 17:31
• @Lisa, I did post an answer, over two years ago. – Gerry Myerson Dec 22 '14 at 18:34

Let's define g(n) as the number of decompositions of $2n$ into ordered sums of two odd primes (A002372)

The following sum gives the exact value for g(n): $$g(n) = \sum_{i=2}^{\pi(2n)} \pi(2n-p(i))-\pi(2n-1-p(i))$$

where $p(n)$ is the nth prime and $\pi(n)$ is the prime-counting function.

Now if you are looking for something that will work without knowing the primes up to $n$, we can get a pretty good estimate from the sum above. Let's consider the sum of all $g(i)$ from $i=3\to n$: $$\sum_{i=3}^{n} g(i)$$ From the first sum, we can get: $$\sum_{i=3}^{n} g(i) = 1+\sum_{i=3}^{\pi(2n)} \pi(2n-p(i))$$ If we replace $\pi(n)$ with $\frac{n}{ln(n)}$ and $p(n)$ with $nln(n)$, we know from the prime number theorem that the bigger the interval $n-3$ gets, the more precise our estimation gets: $$\sum_{i=3}^{n} g(i) \approx 1+\sum_{i=3}^{\frac{2n}{ln(2n)}} \frac{2n-iln(i)}{ln(2n-iln(i))}$$ Since: $$g(n) = \sum_{i=3}^{n} g(i) - \sum_{i=3}^{n-1} g(i)$$ $$g(n) \approx (1+\sum_{i=3}^{\frac{2n}{ln(2n)}} \frac{2n-iln(i)}{ln(2n-iln(i))})-(1+\sum_{i=3}^{\frac{2(n-1)}{ln(2(n-1))}} \frac{2(n-1)-iln(i)}{ln(2(n-1)-iln(i))})$$ $$g(n) \approx \sum_{i=3}^{\frac{2n}{ln(2n)}} \frac{2n-iln(i)}{ln(2n-iln(i))}-\sum_{i=3}^{\frac{2n-2}{ln(2n-2)}} \frac{2n-2-iln(i)}{ln(2n-2-iln(i))}$$

The results is quite surprising, yet not very practical. The value of the estimation seems to behave like the real g(n), only in a more regular way:  