I noticed a simple pattern in prime numbers, specially twin primes.Using which I was able to prove that every twin prime greater than $(5,7)$ is of the form, $(a+30b,a+2+30b)$, where $a=11,17,29$ and $b$ is a nonnegative integer.

My proof is very elementary and this result is a bit obvious. But I couldn't find anything about this in my number theory textbooks or on the internet. Is this result already known ? If so, where can I read more about this? Can anyone tell if this is a result of a more general pattern?

I already know about Dirichlet's Theorem of Prime Numbers and how it implies that these series will produce infinitely many prime numbers. I apologize in advance if this isn't a proper question.

Edit: This is indeed part of a more general pattern. Thus this question is solved. Thanks to Noah Schweber and kingW3. For example, every cousin prime greater than $(3,7)$ is of the form $(a+30b,a+4+30b)$, $a=7,13,19$.

Such a general form can be shown for sexy primes and primes with higher gaps. Although using higher primorials would be more sensible for showing such general patterns for higher prime gaps.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Assuming I didn't make a mistake every twin prime pair except of the $(5,7)$ is of the form $(210b+a, 210b+a+2)$ for $a=11,17,29,41,59,71,101,107,137,149,179,191,197,209$. I've picked $210$ because it's a primorial. $\endgroup$ – kingW3 Apr 23 '17 at 15:00
  • $\begingroup$ Wow, that's actually really helpful, thanks. $\endgroup$ – Saad Hasan Apr 23 '17 at 15:56

Yes, this is part of a more general pattern. Ultimately, it just boils down to the observation that for any $a$ not of that form, either $a$ or $a+2$ shares a factor with $30$. This can be generalized straightforwardly to show similar limitations on arbitrary finite difference patterns in the primes. I don't know a citation for this, but this sort of argument is quite standard in number theory.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. But I don't get how one could show a similar result for arbitrarily finite difference patterns in the primes by just using this observation. By using the same method I could only prove up to a prime gap of 24. Could you please elaborate a bit? $\endgroup$ – Saad Hasan Apr 23 '17 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ No need. I think I've got it. This can be shown by using primorials. $\endgroup$ – Saad Hasan Apr 23 '17 at 16:08

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.