0
$\begingroup$

Using a table of primes I noted the following pattern: $$p_2 + p_3 - 1 = p_4$$ $$p_3 + p_4 - 1 = p_5$$ $$p_3 + p_4 + 1 = p_6$$ $$p_4 + p_5 - 1 = p_7$$ $$.……………$$ But the pattern failed when, $$p_8 + p_9 + 1 = p_{14}$$ $$p_9 + p_{10} + 1 = p_{16}$$ However I could recover $p_{15}$ as, $$p_{13} + p_4 - 1 = p_{15}$$ Gradually I came to recognize a possible theorem: At least one of $p_m + p_n ± 1, m,n ≠ 2$ is necessarily a prime where $p_r$ is a prime. Can this be proved in any way?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Note that $26=7+19$ and neither of $26\pm 1$ is prime.

Indeed, if Goldbach's conjecture is right, there will be infinitely many counterexamples, because the even numbers $30n\pm 4$, for example, will be the sum of two odd primes, while $30n\pm 5$ is divisible by $5$ and $30n\pm 3$ is divisible by $3$.

There are many counterexamples anyway, because Goldbach's conjecture has been numerically verified for millions of values.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

This is false.

Take $n=2$ or $p_n = 3$ your theorem says that for every prime either $p+2$ or $p+4$ is a prime which is definitely false. Take $p=23$ for example (I think this is the smallest counterexample).

$\endgroup$

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.